Self contained example of running some data through Inkbot using pgml

pgml_self_contained.sql

SELECT *
, rtrim(ltrim(replace(pgml.transform(
    task => '{
      "task": "text-generation",
      "model": "TheBloke/Inkbot-13B-8k-0.2-GPTQ",
      "use_safetensors": true,
	  "inject_fused_attention": false, 
	  "device": 1
    }'::JSONB,
    inputs => ARRAY[
        formatted_prompt
    ],
    args => '{
      "max_new_tokens": 2048
    }'::JSONB
) ->> 0, formatted_prompt, ''), '<s> '), '</s>') as response
FROM (
SELECT id::integer
	, part::integer
	, prompt_date::date
	, task::text
	, system_prompt::text
	, instruction::text
	, user_context::text
	, format($$<#meta#>
- Date: %1$s
- Task: %2$s
<#system#>
%3$s
<#chat#>
<#user#>
%4$s
<#user_context#>
%5$s
<#bot#>
$$, prompt_date, task, system_prompt, instruction, user_context) as formatted_prompt
, response::text as expected_response
FROM (VALUES 
('2', '1', '2023-09-04', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
In the beggining, there was only chaos and void. then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Corrected:
In the beginning, there was only chaos and void. Then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Prior Context:

Original:
its a well known fact that the earth revolves arround the sun. but, have you ever wondered how this came to be discovered.

Corrected:
It''s a well-known fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But, have you ever wondered how this came to be discovered?



Prior Context:


Original:
Well, howdy there, Internet people. It''s Beau again. So today we are going to talk about a new website that the government has put up, the U.S. government, and how it confirms a belief that I''ve held that a lot of people didn''t want to believe. So, there is an office and it is a It''s a .mil website, so it''s DOD. It is called the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. Aliens, right? Those eight videos, they''re on the site. This is now a homepage for this office, and if you want to watch those videos that a lot of people are saying are alien in nature, you could go watch them there. They''re on the site and it appears they''re going to be updating it as more stuff becomes declassified. But before you start trying to phone home, there''s something interesting on the site under mission. Minimize technical and intelligence surprise by synchronizing scientific intelligence and operational detection, identification, attribution, and mitigation of unidentified anomalous phenomena in the vicinity of national security areas. They''re looking for stuff from Beijing or Moscow, not the Delta Quadrant. The purpose of this is absolutely to look for aviation technology that is being used to spy on the United States, like, say, I don''t know, a balloon. That''s what this is about. About a year ago, when the whole task force got announced, I was like, this is in the press release, and this doesn''t seem like the X-Files to me. It wasn''t what a lot of people wanted to hear because deep down, I think everybody wants to, you know, believe that we''re not alone. But maybe they find something else along the way, but it seems pretty clear that the actual purpose here is counterintelligence. And they are kind of creating a clearinghouse for stuff that is cited that people didn''t understand because they didn''t know what it was, because it was something employing a new technology. It''s also interesting that it has gone to all domain instead of, you know, just looking up. That is for underwater drones. That''s what it''s about. You know, the truth may be out there, but it''s probably not going to come from this office. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.

', 'Well, howdy there, Internet people. It''s Beau again. So today we are going to talk about a new website that the government has put up, the U.S. government, and how it confirms a belief that I''ve held that a lot of people didn''t want to believe. So, there is an office and it is a .mil website, so it''s DOD. It is called the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. Aliens, right? Those eight videos, they''re on the site. This is now a homepage for this office, and if you want to watch those videos that a lot of people are saying are alien in nature, you could go watch them there. They''re on the site and it appears they''re going to be updating it as more stuff becomes declassified.

But before you start trying to phone home, there''s something interesting on the site under mission. Minimize technical and intelligence surprise by synchronizing scientific intelligence and operational detection, identification, attribution, and mitigation of unidentified anomalous phenomena in the vicinity of national security areas. They''re looking for stuff from Beijing or Moscow, not the Delta Quadrant. The purpose of this is absolutely to look for aviation technology that is being used to spy on the United States, like, say, I don''t know, a balloon. That''s what this is about. About a year ago, when the whole task force got announced, I was like, this is in the press release, and this doesn''t seem like the X-Files to me. It wasn''t what a lot of people wanted to hear because deep down, I think everybody wants to, you know, believe that we''re not alone.

But maybe they find something else along the way, but it seems pretty clear that the actual purpose here is counterintelligence. And they are kind of creating a clearinghouse for stuff that is cited that people didn''t understand because they didn''t know what it was, because it was something employing a new technology. It''s also interesting that it has gone to all domain instead of, you know, just looking up. That is for underwater drones. That''s what it''s about. You know, the truth may be out there, but it''s probably not going to come from this office.

Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.')
,('13', '1', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
February 26, 1944. We''ve seen the Germans bomb European cities, we''ve seen the Brits, the Americans, and the Soviets do it too. What if they do it all at once? That happens this week. This is Big Week. This is War Against Humanity, a series of World War Two in Real Time. I''m Spartacus Olsson. In the second and third week of February 1944, the fractured French resistance was finally unifying under a central command. The Royal Air Force broke out dozens of French resistance members by bombing the prison they were being held in, in Amiens. In the British House of Lords, a debate about the morality of strategic bombing flared up, in the midst of which the Allied forces in Italy destroyed the Millennium Old Monastery at Monte Cassino. In Lithuania and Greece, the anti-communist resistance entered into tentative cooperation agreements with their German occupiers. In Poland, the Home Army ramped up Operation Tempest to fight the German occupiers, while the US declared neutrality in the Polish-Soviet border dispute. This week it is British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who very publicly returns to the Polish question. Now, on the 21st, Churchill messages Stalin that the Polish government-in-exile is ready to accept the Kursan Line. Like US President Franklin Roosevelt last week, he tries to convince Soviet de facto dictator Joseph Stalin to accept an independent Polish government. Churchill reassures the Soviet top dog that by the time diplomatic relations are restored, the Polish government will consist of members willing to cooperate with Moscow. Stalin remains unconvinced. The next day, Churchill holds a speech in the House of Commons publicly proclaiming support for the Soviet border demands, misrepresenting Stalin''s position. It was with great pleasure that I heard from Marshal Stalin that he too was resolved upon the creation and maintenance of a strong, integral, independent Poland as one of the leading powers in Europe. I am convinced that they represent the settled policy of the Soviet Union. Four days later, the Polish government-in-exile goes against Churchill''s wishes and rejects Soviet demands that the Kurson Line shall be Poland''s eastern frontier.

', 'February 26, 1944. We''ve seen the Germans bomb European cities, we''ve seen the Brits, the Americans, and the Soviets do it too. What if they do it all at once? That happens this week. This is Big Week. This is War Against Humanity, a series of World War Two in Real Time. I''m Spartacus Olsson. In the second and third week of February 1944, the fractured French resistance was finally unifying under a central command. The Royal Air Force broke out dozens of French resistance members by bombing the prison they were being held in, in Amiens. In the British House of Lords, a debate about the morality of strategic bombing flared up, in the midst of which the Allied forces in Italy destroyed the Millennium Old Monastery at Monte Cassino. In Lithuania and Greece, the anti-communist resistance entered into tentative cooperation agreements with their German occupiers. In Poland, the Home Army ramped up Operation Tempest to fight the German occupiers, while the US declared neutrality in the Polish-Soviet border dispute. This week it is British Prime Minister Winston Churchill who very publicly returns to the Polish question. Now, on the 21st, Churchill messages Stalin that the Polish government-in-exile is ready to accept the Kursan Line. Like US President Franklin Roosevelt last week, he tries to convince Soviet de facto dictator Joseph Stalin to accept an independent Polish government. Churchill reassures the Soviet top dog that by the time diplomatic relations are restored, the Polish government will consist of members willing to cooperate with Moscow. Stalin remains unconvinced. The next day, Churchill holds a speech in the House of Commons publicly proclaiming support for the Soviet border demands, misrepresenting Stalin''s position. "It was with great pleasure that I heard from Marshal Stalin that he too was resolved upon the creation and maintenance of a strong, integral, independent Poland as one of the leading powers in Europe. I am convinced that they represent the settled policy of the Soviet Union." Four days later, the Polish government-in-exile goes against Churchill''s wishes and rejects Soviet demands that the Kurson Line shall be Poland''s eastern frontier.')
,('13', '2', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
l, independent Poland as one of the leading powers in Europe. I am convinced that they represent the settled policy of the Soviet Union. Four days later, the Polish government-in-exile goes against Churchill''s wishes and rejects Soviet demands that the Kurson Line shall be Poland''s eastern frontier.
Original:
In the Far East, the events of a post-war future are also being prepared, but here the issue is how to handle the enemy after they have been defeated. The United Nations alliance has set up bodies to handle investigations and prosecutions of Axis war crimes, but China is lagging behind. Almost a year ago, in March 1943, the Kuomintang Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a list of war crimes and made them subject to mandatory investigation. They requested military commanders and provincial governments to report the crimes. The task proved to be difficult, and there was no body set up to handle investigations. On February 23rd, That changes when a War Crimes Investigation Committee with members from several ministries is formed. The committee will coordinate and lead investigations conducted by the provincial and municipal governments of China and selected military commanders in each war zone. The investigations will effectively bring together all levels of the Kuomintang Nationalist Party and the current Chinese court system in cooperation. But it will not involve the Chinese Communist Party, and it will only investigate crimes by the Japanese enemy. As past Axis crimes come under more and more investigation, there seems to be no end to new Axis crimes to investigate. In Auschwitz on February 23rd, a train arrives with several hundred Jews from the Weimar concentration camp near Narva. Vaivara is the biggest of the 22 Nazi camps in occupied Estonia. When the ghettos in Vilnius and Kovno were liquidated last year, some of those not murdered in the liquidation ended up here. Until now, their fate was undecided. At Auschwitz, they are murdered on arrival. On this day, the Nazis make no record of the names and numbers of people killed. They simply herd them into the gas chambers to an anonymous death. Two days later, a transport from Vienna arrives with a variety of prisoners, among them are 41 Austrians of Jewish ethnicity. The non-Jewish prisoners and 16 of the able-bodied Jews are enslaved, and the youngest and oldest 25 are murdered.

', 'In the Far East, preparations are being made for the post-war future, specifically how to handle the defeated enemy. The United Nations alliance has established bodies to investigate and prosecute Axis war crimes, but China is falling behind. Nearly a year ago, in March 1943, the Kuomintang Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs compiled a list of war crimes that must be investigated. They requested military commanders and provincial governments to report these crimes. However, the task proved difficult as there was no designated body to handle the investigations. On February 23rd, a War Crimes Investigation Committee is formed, consisting of members from several ministries. The committee will coordinate and lead investigations conducted by provincial and municipal governments in China, as well as selected military commanders in each war zone. These investigations will involve all levels of the Kuomintang Nationalist Party and the current Chinese court system in cooperation. Notably, the Chinese Communist Party will not be involved, and the investigations will focus solely on crimes committed by the Japanese enemy. As more Axis crimes come under scrutiny, it seems that there is no end to new crimes to investigate. On February 23rd, a train arrives at Auschwitz carrying several hundred Jews from the Weimar concentration camp near Narva. Vaivara, the largest of the 22 Nazi camps in occupied Estonia, became a refuge for those who survived the liquidation of the ghettos in Vilnius and Kovno. However, their fate remained uncertain until now. Upon arrival at Auschwitz, they are immediately murdered. The Nazis do not record their names or numbers; they are simply herded into the gas chambers for an anonymous death. Two days later, a transport from Vienna arrives, containing various prisoners, including 41 Austrian Jews. The non-Jewish prisoners and 16 of the able-bodied Jews are enslaved, while the youngest and oldest 25 are murdered.')
,('13', '3', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
mply herd them into the gas chambers to an anonymous death. Two days later, a transport from Vienna arrives with a variety of prisoners, among them are 41 Austrians of Jewish ethnicity. The non-Jewish prisoners and 16 of the able-bodied Jews are enslaved, and the youngest and oldest 25 are murdered.
Original:
The next day, a transport from Fossoli, Italy brings 650 Jewish-Italian men, women, and children, and another train brings 64 Polish-Jewish men until now enslaved at the Sosnowiec concentration camp. The 134 deemed to be the healthiest are enslaved, and 580, the elderly, the ailing or weak, pregnant women, and children too young to work are murdered. While that clockwork of death continues to tick, a crescendo of bombs from all sides rain down on European cities. The Germans continue their renewed retribution attacks on Great Britain, mainly London. This week the Luftwaffe is more successful at bringing death and destruction than in previous weeks. Since last night of last week, they are bombing London nightly. Now, during the Blitz of 1941, the Germans were using a more targeted approach than the RAF, with dive bombers playing a significant part. The RAF, on the other hand, have used mainly area or carpet bombing, with significantly more effect but less precision. The Germans have now adopted the same tactic, but with far fewer bombers than the British can deploy. In the night into February 21st, for the first time, most of the bomber stream manages to converge over London. The raid ignites 480 fires, 179 civilians are killed immediately, 65 reported missing are also presumed dead, and 484 are seriously injured. Destruction is widespread, with interrupted underground services cut water mains and blocked streets, and over 200 houses damaged. The next night they come again, this time they cause many more fires. The boroughs of Fulham, Putney and Chiswick bear the brunt of the attack. Fulham alone is hit by 20,000 incendiary bombs, causing 642 fires. Later calculations will show that had the RAF failed to divert a few less, or not shoot down all of the nine bombers they did, a firestorm would likely have erupted here. The government quarters at Westminster is hit by four heavy bombs. One on Whitehall kills four people on the corner of 10 Downing Street. Horse Guards Parade, St. James Park, the Admiralty, and the War Office are damaged. Six bombs hit the Grange at South Mims, where Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands'' residence in exile is situated.

', 'The next day, a transport from Fossoli, Italy brings 650 Jewish-Italian men, women, and children, and another train brings 64 Polish-Jewish men who were previously enslaved at the Sosnowiec concentration camp. Of the 134 prisoners deemed to be the healthiest, they are enslaved, while the remaining 580, including the elderly, ailing or weak individuals, pregnant women, and children too young to work, are murdered. As this clockwork of death continues, a crescendo of bombs rains down on European cities from all sides. The Germans carry out renewed retribution attacks on Great Britain, with a particular focus on London. This week, the Luftwaffe is more successful in causing death and destruction compared to previous weeks. Since the previous night, they have been bombing London nightly during the Blitz of 1941. The Germans adopt a more targeted approach, utilizing dive bombers, while the RAF primarily employs area or carpet bombing, resulting in greater overall impact but less precision. However, the Germans have fewer bombers at their disposal than the British. On the night of February 21st, for the first time, a majority of the bomber stream converges over London. This raid ignites 480 fires and immediately kills 179 civilians, with 65 reported missing and presumed dead, and 484 seriously injured. The destruction is widespread, causing interruptions in underground services, cut water mains, blocked streets, and damage to over 200 houses. The following night, the Germans return, causing even more fires. The boroughs of Fulham, Putney, and Chiswick bear the brunt of the attack, with Fulham alone being hit by 20,000 incendiary bombs and experiencing 642 fires. Later calculations reveal that had the RAF failed to divert a few less bombers or not shot down all nine of the bombers they did, a firestorm would likely have erupted in this area. Government quarters at Westminster are hit by four heavy bombs, with one on Whitehall killing four people on the corner of 10 Downing Street. Horse Guards Parade, St. James Park, the Admiralty, and the War Office also suffer damage. Additionally, six bombs hit the Grange at South Mims, which serves as the residence in exile for Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands.')
,('13', '4', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
er is hit by four heavy bombs. One on Whitehall kills four people on the corner of 10 Downing Street. Horse Guards Parade, St. James Park, the Admiralty, and the War Office are damaged. Six bombs hit the Grange at South Mims, where Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands'' residence in exile is situated.
Original:
Her Majesty narrowly escapes being hit, but two of her staff are killed. The raid causes 216 dead and 417 seriously injured. The night going into February 23, the Luftwaffe drop 81 tons of bombs on London and 75 tons on Essex and Kent. Around 230 fires erupt and 29 people die. The next night the code name for the operation is Hamburg, and the intended target is London docks. The bombs fall mainly on the town of Colchester though, where 1,400 incendiaries start a connected fire in multiple properties in the town center. It takes 75 fire engines and 2 million gallons of water to extinguish the flames. Miraculously, there is only one injured and no fatalities on the ground. The night into February 25, the target is the government quarter at Westminster. The Germans send in 170 planes. Many bombs do fall on Westminster, but despite new, supposedly better bomb sites, the bombs are also scattered to many places. The building housing General Dwight Eisenhower''s Supreme Headquarters'' Allied Expeditionary Force, where the invasion of Normandy is being planned, barely escapes being hit. In all, some 250 fires erupt and 75 people are killed. Now that, this here, is the 9th raid of Operation Steinbock. 129 German bombers have been lost, as well as dozens of escorting fighters. Hundreds of airmen are dead or captured, numbers that the Luftwaffe can''t sustain over time. Like all the raids by any side in the war so far, despite the terror it inflicts, the damage it does, and the people it kills, the Germans have achieved little to nothing to move the dial in the actual war. Well, except keeping their own air force and that of the enemy busy being destroyed and dying and making the people at home feel that at least something is being done to punish the enemy. This week, the US Army Air Force is determined to break that status quo as they go after German air power in Big Week. Operation Argument, Big Week, is a six-day campaign to undermine German aircraft production. Karl Spatz, commander of the US Air Force in the combined bombing campaign, has postponed the operation several times due to poor weather. But this week the skies are clearer.

', 'Her Majesty narrowly escapes being hit, but two of her staff are killed. The raid causes 216 deaths and 417 serious injuries. On the night of February 23, the Luftwaffe drops 81 tons of bombs on London and 75 tons on Essex and Kent. Around 230 fires erupt and 29 people die. The next night, the code name for the operation is Hamburg, and the intended target is the London docks. However, the bombs mainly fall on the town of Colchester, where 1,400 incendiaries start a fire in multiple properties in the town center. It takes 75 fire engines and 2 million gallons of water to extinguish the flames. Miraculously, there is only one injury and no fatalities on the ground. On the night of February 25, the target is the government quarter at Westminster. The Germans send in 170 planes. Many bombs do fall on Westminster, but despite new, supposedly better bomb sites, the bombs are also scattered to many other places. The building housing General Dwight Eisenhower''s Supreme Headquarters'' Allied Expeditionary Force, where the invasion of Normandy is being planned, barely escapes being hit. In total, some 250 fires erupt and 75 people are killed. Now, this here is the 9th raid of Operation Steinbock. 129 German bombers have been lost, as well as dozens of escorting fighters. Hundreds of airmen are dead or captured, numbers that the Luftwaffe can''t sustain over time. Like all the raids by any side in the war so far, despite the terror it inflicts, the damage it does, and the people it kills, the Germans have achieved little to nothing to move the dial in the actual war. Well, except keeping their own air force and that of the enemy busy being destroyed and dying and making the people at home feel that at least something is being done to punish the enemy. This week, the US Army Air Force is determined to break that status quo as they go after German air power in Big Week. Operation Argument, Big Week, is a six-day campaign to undermine German aircraft production. Karl Spatz, commander of the US Air Force in the combined bombing campaign, has postponed the operation several times due to poor weather. But this week, the skies are clearer.')
,('13', '5', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
r German air power in Big Week. Operation Argument, Big Week, is a six-day campaign to undermine German aircraft production. Karl Spatz, commander of the US Air Force in the combined bombing campaign, has postponed the operation several times due to poor weather. But this week the skies are clearer.
Original:
To avoid the previous disastrous losses, the fighter escorts'' ranges have been extended with drop tanks, formation training has been intensified, and the attack patterns altered. It begins on February 20, when they come down on 12 major targets in Rostock, Braunschweig, Leipzig, and a half-dozen other smaller towns. Only 15 of 880 bombers and four escorting fighters are lost. However, the Luftwaffe soon learned the new patterns of attack and for unknown reasons escorts lapse later in the week, leading to a total of 158 lost planes for the 8th and 89th for the 15th Air Force by week''s end. Only 28 American fighters are lost, while the Luftwaffe will lose one-third of its single-engine fighters during February, and almost one-fifth of its fighter crews. Planes the Germans can''t replace fast enough. The USAAF, on the other hand, have almost twice as many P-51 Mustang fighters on hand by the end of the week than they had at the beginning. So one might think that the raids are a raging success. Well, this is how Richard Overy analyzes the situation in his book, The Bombing War in Europe. The damage sustained by the German aircraft industry was difficult for the Allies to gauge. Not least because air intelligence estimates of German production by this stage of the war greatly understated the reality. The Ministry of Economic Warfare estimates of German fighter production for the first half of 1944 was 655 a month, whereas the reality was 1,581 and rising steadily. The aero-engine industry, more difficult to disperse and more vulnerable, was not attacked, a failure that Göring later pointed out to his post-war interrogators. The attacks accelerated the further dispersal of the industry and prompted a program for underground construction in which aircraft had a priority. A planned 48 million square meters of floor space out of a provisional total of 93 million. Output nevertheless continued to increase rapidly despite the bombing, which has encouraged it effectively failed. What the operation succeeds to do, though, is kill a lot of civilians. Arthur Harris, RAF Bomber Command, is flying parallel missions.

', 'To avoid previous disastrous losses, the fighter escorts'' ranges have been extended with drop tanks, formation training has been intensified, and the attack patterns altered. It begins on February 20, when they come down on 12 major targets in Rostock, Braunschweig, Leipzig, and a half-dozen other smaller towns. Only 15 of 880 bombers and four escorting fighters are lost. However, the Luftwaffe soon learned the new patterns of attack, and for unknown reasons, escorts lapse later in the week, leading to a total of 158 lost planes for the 8th and 89th for the 15th Air Force by week''s end. Only 28 American fighters are lost, while the Luftwaffe will lose one-third of its single-engine fighters during February and almost one-fifth of its fighter crews. Planes the Germans can''t replace fast enough. The USAAF, on the other hand, has almost twice as many P-51 Mustang fighters on hand by the end of the week than they had at the beginning. So one might think that the raids are a raging success. Well, this is how Richard Overy analyzes the situation in his book, The Bombing War in Europe. The damage sustained by the German aircraft industry was difficult for the Allies to gauge, not least because air intelligence estimates of German production by this stage of the war greatly understated the reality. The Ministry of Economic Warfare estimates of German fighter production for the first half of 1944 were 655 a month, whereas the reality was 1,581 and rising steadily. The aero-engine industry, more difficult to disperse and more vulnerable, was not attacked, a failure that Göring later pointed out to his post-war interrogators. The attacks accelerated the further dispersal of the industry and prompted a program for underground construction in which aircraft had priority. A planned 48 million square meters of floor space out of a provisional total of 93 million. Output nevertheless continued to increase rapidly despite the bombing, which has encouraged it effectively failed. What the operation succeeds in doing, though, is killing a lot of civilians. Arthur Harris, RAF Bomber Command, is flying parallel missions.')
,('13', '6', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
or space out of a provisional total of 93 million. Output nevertheless continued to increase rapidly despite the bombing, which has encouraged it effectively failed. What the operation succeeds to do, though, is kill a lot of civilians. Arthur Harris, RAF Bomber Command, is flying parallel missions.
Original:
Although he has previously refused to target industry primarily, he does try this week. It doesn''t work, and he again hits mostly civilian targets. The worst raid is over Augsburg in the night into February 26, 60% of the city is destroyed. Casualty raids for civilians, POW and forced laborers are not tallied for the specific raids as it is by now hard to assign them to one definitive event. Reasonable estimates range from several hundred, possibly thousands of dead. The worst incident for the Americans happens on February 22nd. On this day a lot of things go wrong. Many planes fail to take off, and even more get recalled due to unexpected low cloud cover over Germany. As they return, they are attacked by the Luftwaffe. The weather, the attacking fighters, and the general confusion disperses them. The standing order is that if the intended target is abandoned, they must look for targets of opportunity. The bombers that had reached Germany now try to unload their bombs on railroad junctions, train stations, and factories on their way back. Now, in the chaos they don''t know exactly where they are, and the targets are only identified visually. They mistakenly assume that they are still over Germany. Instead they are bombing Niemegen, Arnhem, Deventer, and Enschede in the Netherlands. They hit mostly residential areas, killing 40 in Enschede, 57 in Arnhem, and 880 in Nijmegen. Countless more are injured. 1,270 buildings are destroyed, leaving several thousand families homeless. The next day the weather is still poor, and operations are suspended as an investigation is launched into the previous day''s tragedy. The Dutch government in exile and the US embassy quickly agreed that it''s a tragic operational mistake. The German occupiers in the Netherlands seized on the propaganda opportunity, having the Nazi-controlled Dutch press publish things like this. The Anglo-American pirates of the sky have once again executed the orders of their Jewish capitalist leaders with extraordinarily positive results.

', 'Although he has previously refused to primarily target industry, he does so this week. It doesn''t work, and he again hits mostly civilian targets. The worst raid occurs over Augsburg on the night of February 26th, with 60% of the city destroyed. Casualty numbers for civilians, POWs, and forced laborers are not tallied specifically for these raids, as it is now difficult to assign them to one definitive event. Reasonable estimates range from several hundred to possibly thousands dead. The worst incident for the Americans happens on February 22nd. On this day, many planes fail to take off, and even more are recalled due to unexpected low cloud cover over Germany. As they return, they are attacked by the Luftwaffe. The weather, the attacking fighters, and the general confusion disperse them. The standing order is that if the intended target is abandoned, they must look for targets of opportunity. The bombers that had reached Germany now try to unload their bombs on railroad junctions, train stations, and factories on their way back. In the chaos, they don''t know exactly where they are, and the targets are only identified visually. They mistakenly assume that they are still over Germany. Instead, they bomb Nijmegen, Arnhem, Deventer, and Enschede in the Netherlands. They hit mostly residential areas, killing 40 in Enschede, 57 in Arnhem, and 880 in Nijmegen. Countless more are injured. 1,270 buildings are destroyed, leaving several thousand families homeless. The next day, the weather is still poor, and operations are suspended as an investigation is launched into the previous day''s tragedy. The Dutch government in exile and the US embassy quickly agree that it was a tragic operational mistake. The German occupiers in the Netherlands seize on the propaganda opportunity, having the Nazi-controlled Dutch press publish things like this: "The Anglo-American pirates of the sky have once again executed the orders of their Jewish capitalist leaders with extraordinarily positive results."')
,('13', '7', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
mistake. The German occupiers in the Netherlands seized on the propaganda opportunity, having the Nazi-controlled Dutch press publish things like this. The Anglo-American pirates of the sky have once again executed the orders of their Jewish capitalist leaders with extraordinarily positive results.
Original:
While these raids have some kind of success, for better or worse, the massive raids the Soviet Union is carrying out against their Finnish enemy in February 1944 are a complete bust. In the last night of this week, the Soviet Air Force, the VVS, carry out their third and final attack of the month on Helsinki. 896 bombers come in three waves, dropping thousands of bombs. The Soviets are convinced that they have now destroyed the city, killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians, and that the Finns will thereby be forced to the negotiating table. They are mistaken. As the Soviet-led military commission visiting Helsinki shortly after the war will note in astonishment, in all these raids the VVS have consequently missed the capital, dropping most of their bombs in the wilderness. Of the 5,182 bombs dropped in the final raid, only 290 fall on the city. The civilians are mostly evacuated since long, and any people remaining are warned over 90 minutes ahead of time thanks to effective radar monitoring. Instead of thousands killed, the combined death toll for the three raids is in the dozens. While they fail here, the Soviets succeed in the complete cleansing of two entire ethnicities this week. In 1940, the Checheno-Ingush ASSR, part of the Russian SFSR, inspired by the Finnish resistance to the Red Army in the Winter War, brothers Hassan and Hussein Israilov launched an insurgency against the Soviet government. The 451,000 people of Chechen and Ingush ethnicities make up 65% of the ASSR population. Another 30,000 live outside of the ASSR. They have all faced suppression of their culture and Islamic religion by the Communists since the Russian Revolution. After Barbarossa, the Israilov brothers proclaimed the provisional popular revolutionary government of Chechen Ingushetia. By the end of the summer of 1941, their militia counted 5,000 combatants, with 25,000 civilians in support. So 6.6% of the Chechen and Ingush population rebelled against Soviet oppression. The Israelovs set up strict discipline and guidelines for how to operate with the goal to fight the NKVD and their helpers, but not dragged undefended civilians into the fight.

', 'While these raids have some kind of success, for better or worse, the massive raids the Soviet Union is carrying out against their Finnish enemy in February 1944 are a complete bust. In the last night of this week, the Soviet Air Force, the VVS, carried out their third and final attack of the month on Helsinki. 896 bombers came in three waves, dropping thousands of bombs. The Soviets were convinced that they had now destroyed the city, killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians, and that the Finns would thereby be forced to the negotiating table. They were mistaken. As the Soviet-led military commission visiting Helsinki shortly after the war will note in astonishment, in all these raids the VVS had consequently missed the capital, dropping most of their bombs in the wilderness. Of the 5,182 bombs dropped in the final raid, only 290 fell on the city. The civilians were mostly evacuated long ago, and any people remaining were warned over 90 minutes ahead of time thanks to effective radar monitoring. Instead of thousands killed, the combined death toll for the three raids is in the dozens. While they failed here, the Soviets succeeded in the complete cleansing of two entire ethnicities this week. In 1940, the Checheno-Ingush ASSR, part of the Russian SFSR, inspired by the Finnish resistance to the Red Army in the Winter War, brothers Hassan and Hussein Israilov launched an insurgency against the Soviet government. The 451,000 people of Chechen and Ingush ethnicities made up 65% of the ASSR population. Another 30,000 lived outside of the ASSR. They had all faced suppression of their culture and Islamic religion by the Communists since the Russian Revolution. After Barbarossa, the Israilov brothers proclaimed the provisional popular revolutionary government of Chechen Ingushetia. By the end of the summer of 1941, their militia counted 5,000 combatants, with 25,000 civilians in support. So 6.6% of the Chechen and Ingush population rebelled against Soviet oppression. The Israilovs set up strict discipline and guidelines for how to operate with the goal to fight the NKVD and their helpers, but not dragged undefended civilians into the fight.')
,('13', '8', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
batants, with 25,000 civilians in support. So 6.6% of the Chechen and Ingush population rebelled against Soviet oppression. The Israelovs set up strict discipline and guidelines for how to operate with the goal to fight the NKVD and their helpers, but not dragged undefended civilians into the fight.
Original:
The campaign that Moscow launches to fight the rebels was far less surgical, including carpet bombing and reprisal killings of the uninvolved. In early 1942, Marbek Sheripov raised another militia, and the total number of rebels reached 60,000 including supporters, many of whom had deserted from the Red Army after seeing reprisals against their neighbors and families. Sheripov''s and the Israelov''s joint goal became to unite several nascent ethnic rebellions in the Caucasus to achieve independence and freedom from communism for each ethnicity. Now, the Nazi-led invasion into the Caucasus only barely reached the Checheno-English ASSR. The only town seized by the German forces was Malgobek, which had a majority of Russian ethnic inhabitants. The capital, Grozny, remained behind the frontlines. Negotiations did take place between Sherepov and the Germans, but nothing came of it because, as Sherepov told the Germans, if the liberation of the Caucasus meant only the exchange of one colonizer for another, the Caucasians would consider this only a new stage in the national liberation war. In the end, only 100 Chechens collaborated with the Nazis. Now, after the Germans retreated, it is time for the Soviets to quell the rebellion once and for all. Well, to be exact, it is time to eliminate the supposedly Nazi collaborationist Checheno-Ingush ASSR altogether. Leading the charge is head of the NKVD Lavrentiy Beria in direct coordination with Stalin. In their communication we can see the true motives. Beria tells the dictator that the Chechens have a low level of labor discipline, that there is prevalence of banditry and terrorism, alludes to the failure of the Chechens to join the Communist Party, and points to the confession of a German agent that he found a lot of supporters among the local Ingush. In the past month Beria has moved 100,000 NKVD operatives into the ASSR, ostensibly to provide humanitarian aid. Many of them are housed on friendly terms with the very families they are about to go after. On February 20, Birja personally comes to Grozny to oversee Operation Lentil. Three days later, February 23rd, is Red Army Day, and the operation begins.

', 'The campaign that Moscow launched to fight the rebels was far less surgical, including carpet bombing and reprisal killings of the uninvolved. In early 1942, Marbek Sheripov raised another militia, and the total number of rebels reached 60,000, including supporters, many of whom had deserted from the Red Army after witnessing reprisals against their neighbors and families. Sheripov''s and the Israelovs'' joint goal became to unite several nascent ethnic rebellions in the Caucasus to achieve independence and freedom from communism for each ethnicity. 

Now, the Nazi-led invasion into the Caucasus only barely reached the Checheno-Ingush ASSR. The only town seized by the German forces was Malgobek, which had a majority of Russian ethnic inhabitants. The capital, Grozny, remained behind the frontlines. Negotiations did take place between Sheripov and the Germans, but nothing came of it because, as Sheripov told the Germans, if the liberation of the Caucasus meant only the exchange of one colonizer for another, the Caucasians would consider this only a new stage in the national liberation war. In the end, only 100 Chechens collaborated with the Nazis. 

Now, after the Germans retreated, it is time for the Soviets to quell the rebellion once and for all. Well, to be exact, it is time to eliminate the supposedly Nazi collaborationist Checheno-Ingush ASSR altogether. Leading the charge is the head of the NKVD, Lavrentiy Beria, in direct coordination with Stalin. In their communication, we can see the true motives. Beria tells the dictator that the Chechens have a low level of labor discipline, that there is a prevalence of banditry and terrorism, alludes to the failure of the Chechens to join the Communist Party, and points to the confession of a German agent that he found a lot of supporters among the local Ingush. 

In the past month, Beria has moved 100,000 NKVD operatives into the ASSR, ostensibly to provide humanitarian aid. Many of them are housed on friendly terms with the very families they are about to go after. On February 20, Beria personally comes to Grozny to oversee Operation Lentil. Three days later, on February 23rd, which is Red Army Day, the operation begins.')
,('13', '9', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
nto the ASSR, ostensibly to provide humanitarian aid. Many of them are housed on friendly terms with the very families they are about to go after. On February 20, Birja personally comes to Grozny to oversee Operation Lentil. Three days later, February 23rd, is Red Army Day, and the operation begins.
Original:
Going house to house, they force the families to pack their belongings in only 20 to 30 minutes. When the NKVD meets resistance, they respond with slaughter, like in the Aul of Kaibakh, where some 700 people are locked in a barn and burned to death by NKVD General Mikhail Jevichiany, who receives praise and the promise of a medal from Beria. In remote villages, the entire population is killed on Beria''s orders as they are considered too cumbersome to transport, as are those straggling or left behind when the transports are full. They combed the huts to make sure there was no one left behind. The soldier who came into the house did not want to bend down. He raked the hut with a burst from his submachine gun. Blood trickled out from under the bench where a child was hiding. The mother screamed and hurled herself at the soldier. He shot her too. There was not enough rolling stock. Those left behind were shot. The bodies were covered with earth and sand carelessly. The shooting had also been careless, and people started wriggling out of the sand like worms. The NKVD men spent the whole night shooting them all over again. In less than a week, the NKVD round up the entire Chechen and Ingush population. In the first day alone, 176,950 people are loaded onto Studebaker US-6 trucks and taken to the unheated and uninsulated freight cars. The 180 trains will run until March 13 and travel over 3,000 kilometers to discharge their human cargo into desolate areas of Central Asia devoid of shelters or food. Most end up in the Kazakh SSR, a large number in the Kyrgyz SSR, and a lesser number of deportees in the Uzbek SSR, Russian SFSR, and Tajik SSR. In all 478,479 Chechens, Ingush, and Russian women married to Chechen or Ingush men are removed. Half of the deported are children. Many die on the trains, others of exposure and starvation in their desolate new homes. Up to 150,000, almost a third of the Chechen and Ingush, have already died or will die prematurely in the coming weeks and months. 70 years later, one of the young children, Isa Khashyaev, will remember his deportation and arrival in Khorchatsy in the Kazakh SSR. We had no water and no food.

', 'Going house to house, they force the families to pack their belongings in only 20 to 30 minutes. When the NKVD meets resistance, they respond with slaughter, like in the Aul of Kaibakh, where some 700 people are locked in a barn and burned to death by NKVD General Mikhail Jevichiany, who receives praise and the promise of a medal from Beria. In remote villages, the entire population is killed on Beria''s orders as they are considered too cumbersome to transport, as are those straggling or left behind when the transports are full. They combed the huts to make sure there was no one left behind.

The soldier who came into the house did not want to bend down. He raked the hut with a burst from his submachine gun. Blood trickled out from under the bench where a child was hiding. The mother screamed and hurled herself at the soldier. He shot her too. There was not enough rolling stock. Those left behind were shot. The bodies were covered with earth and sand carelessly. The shooting had also been careless, and people started wriggling out of the sand like worms. The NKVD men spent the whole night shooting them all over again.

In less than a week, the NKVD rounded up the entire Chechen and Ingush population. In the first day alone, 176,950 people are loaded onto Studebaker US-6 trucks and taken to the unheated and uninsulated freight cars. The 180 trains will run until March 13 and travel over 3,000 kilometers to discharge their human cargo into desolate areas of Central Asia devoid of shelters or food. Most end up in the Kazakh SSR, a large number in the Kyrgyz SSR, and a lesser number of deportees in the Uzbek SSR, Russian SFSR, and Tajik SSR. In total, 478,479 Chechens, Ingush, and Russian women married to Chechen or Ingush men are removed. Half of the deported are children.

Many die on the trains, others of exposure and starvation in their desolate new homes. Up to 150,000, almost a third of the Chechen and Ingush, have already died or will die prematurely in the coming weeks and months. 70 years later, one of the young children, Isa Khashyaev, will remember his deportation and arrival in Khorchatsy in the Kazakh SSR. "We had no water and no food."')
,('13', '10', '2023-02-26', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
homes. Up to 150,000, almost a third of the Chechen and Ingush, have already died or will die prematurely in the coming weeks and months. 70 years later, one of the young children, Isa Khashyaev, will remember his deportation and arrival in Khorchatsy in the Kazakh SSR. We had no water and no food.
Original:
The weak were suffering from hunger, and those who were stronger would get off the train and buy some food. Some people died on the way. No one in our carriage, but in the next carriage I saw them taking out two corpses. Our baby sister died the same night we arrived. My dad was looking for a place to bury her. He found a suitable place, dug the grave, and buried her. She must have frozen to death. Never forget.

', 'The weak were suffering from hunger, and those who were stronger would get off the train and buy some food. Some people died on the way. No one in our carriage, but in the next carriage, I saw them taking out two corpses. Our baby sister died the same night we arrived. My dad was looking for a place to bury her. He found a suitable place, dug the grave, and buried her. She must have frozen to death. Never forget.')
,('17', '1', '2023-09-06', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story

Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story

Prior Context:

Original:
we are living in unprecedented times. Never before have we faced such challenges and opportunities.

Corrected:
We are living in unprecedented times. Never before have we faced such challenges and opportunities.



Prior Context:


Original:
Well howdy there internet people, it''s Beau again. So today we are going to talk about Nevada. I''m sorry, Nevada. I can''t say it like that. And their primary process in the GOP, maybe a caucus, maybe both, maybe we don''t know. Okay, so historically Nevada used a a caucus system, which if you''re not familiar with the difference between a primary and a caucus, it''s real simple. A primary is just like a normal general election, basically, to determine the delegates and who becomes the eventual nominee. A caucus is more like a really disorganized meeting of people who have to show up somewhere in person and there''s a lot of haggling and deal-making and they try to basically pick the winner there. Okay. Historically, Nevada has used a caucus system. Back in 2021, it switched to a primary system. So there''s a vote. The state GOP didn''t like that and they took it to court. The court would not throw out the state-sponsored primary system but also said that the parties don''t have to bind their delegates to the results of the primary and could, if they so chose, hold a caucus on top of the primary. And that appears to be what the GOP in Nevada is going to do. There has been talk, although it is not confirmed yet, there''s been talk about penalizing any potential candidate that participated in the primary during the caucus phase. Yeah, I mean, all of this isn''t going to be confusing to voters and disenfranchised people. I don''t see how this could go wrong at all. Now, even within the Republican Party, there''s a lot of discontent about this. In fact, there are some presidential campaigns who are basically considering writing off the state because they feel that the state-level party is loyal to Trump. There are signs that that could be true, but I haven''t actually seen any signs that they''re trying to necessarily rig the caucus for Trump. But generally speaking, the loyalty of those people in the state party, it does seem very Trump-oriented. One of the interesting parts about this is that it goes to something that we have talked about on the channel over and over again about where the Republican Party is going, where it''s heart and soul when it comes to those in power and what they really want. They want to rule, not represent. And this is a perfect example of this. There is a primary system. It exists. Votes are going to be cast.

', 'Well, howdy there internet people, it''s Beau again. So today we are going to talk about Nevada. I''m sorry, Nevada. I can''t say it like that. And their primary process in the GOP, maybe a caucus, maybe both, maybe we don''t know.

Okay, so historically Nevada used a caucus system, which if you''re not familiar with the difference between a primary and a caucus, it''s real simple. A primary is just like a normal general election, basically, to determine the delegates and who becomes the eventual nominee. A caucus is more like a really disorganized meeting of people who have to show up somewhere in person and there''s a lot of haggling and deal-making, and they try to basically pick the winner there.

Okay. Historically, Nevada has used a caucus system. Back in 2021, it switched to a primary system. So there''s a vote. The state GOP didn''t like that and they took it to court. The court would not throw out the state-sponsored primary system but also said that the parties don''t have to bind their delegates to the results of the primary and could, if they so chose, hold a caucus on top of the primary. And that appears to be what the GOP in Nevada is going to do.

There has been talk, although it is not confirmed yet, there''s been talk about penalizing any potential candidate that participated in the primary during the caucus phase. Yeah, I mean, all of this isn''t going to be confusing to voters and disenfranchised people. I don''t see how this could go wrong at all.

Now, even within the Republican Party, there''s a lot of discontent about this. In fact, there are some presidential campaigns who are basically considering writing off the state because they feel that the state-level party is loyal to Trump. There are signs that that could be true, but I haven''t actually seen any signs that they''re trying to necessarily rig the caucus for Trump. But generally speaking, the loyalty of those people in the state party, it does seem very Trump-oriented.

One of the interesting parts about this is that it goes to something that we have talked about on the channel over and over again about where the Republican Party is going, where its heart and soul when it comes to those in power and what they really want. They want to rule, not represent. And this is a perfect example of this. There is a primary system. It exists. Votes are going to be cast.')
,('17', '2', '2023-09-06', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.



Prior Context:
Republican Party is going, where it''s heart and soul when it comes to those in power and what they really want. They want to rule, not represent. And this is a perfect example of this. There is a primary system. It exists. Votes are going to be cast.

Original:
But rather than accept that and accept the will of Republicans in the state, they want to hold a caucus, which is going to be a smaller number of people who are willing to show up in person for this. And those people are going to be able to make the decision. Again, it''s not about representing the will of the people, it''s about ruling over them. We understand that this is the candidate you want by the primary numbers, but us, those people who have the free time to show up here to this caucus, not the working class, your betters, we''re going to go ahead and pick the candidate for you because you obviously don''t know what you want. symptomatic of the authoritarian ideology that is just infecting the Republican Party. My guess is that if the primary votes and the caucus results, if those results don''t line up, you''re going to have a whole lot of people who who may just decide to sit it out. You''re gonna have a whole lot of discontent. I feel like there was a point in time when the Democratic Party might have made a similar mistake at some point. In fact, I mean, that may, you could probably do like dominoes to what''s going on right now from that. There is, There is a habit in the Republican Party now of those in the establishment looking at their own constituents, people within the Republican Party, not just Americans as a whole, they''ve always done that, but people within the Republican Party and saying, yeah, I understand that, you know, you say you''re a Republican and everything, but you don''t know what you want. You''re not smart enough to figure that out. We, we, those of us in political power, We get to make the decisions and you better just listen to them. Do what you''re told. Certainly appears like that''s what''s going to end up happening out in Nevada. I don''t think that anybody can realistically say that a caucus is more representative of the Republican Party than an actual vote, than a primary. My guess is that this is going to cause a lot of internal feuding within the GOP. But then again, I don''t know. It''s Nevada. Maybe I''m wrong. Roll the dice. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.

', 'But rather than accept that and accept the will of Republicans in the state, they want to hold a caucus, which is going to be a smaller number of people who are willing to show up in person for this. And those people are going to be able to make the decision. Again, it''s not about representing the will of the people, it''s about ruling over them. We understand that this is the candidate you want by the primary numbers, but us, those people who have the free time to show up here to this caucus, not the working class, your betters, we''re going to go ahead and pick the candidate for you because you obviously don''t know what you want. Symptomatic of the authoritarian ideology that is just infecting the Republican Party. My guess is that if the primary votes and the caucus results, if those results don''t line up, you''re going to have a whole lot of people who may just decide to sit it out. You''re gonna have a whole lot of discontent. I feel like there was a point in time when the Democratic Party might have made a similar mistake at some point. In fact, I mean, that may, you could probably do like dominoes to what''s going on right now from that. There is a habit in the Republican Party now of those in the establishment looking at their own constituents, people within the Republican Party, not just Americans as a whole. They''ve always done that, but people within the Republican Party and saying, yeah, I understand that, you know, you say you''re a Republican and everything, but you don''t know what you want. You''re not smart enough to figure that out. We, we, those of us in political power. We get to make the decisions and you better just listen to them. Do what you''re told. Certainly appears like that''s what''s going to end up happening out in Nevada. I don''t think that anybody can realistically say that a caucus is more representative of the Republican Party than an actual vote, than a primary. My guess is that this is going to cause a lot of internal feuding within the GOP. But then again, I don''t know. It''s Nevada. Maybe I''m wrong. Roll the dice. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.')
,('32', '1', '2022-01-13', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story

Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story

Prior Context:

Original:
in ancient times, people beleived the earth was the center of the universe. this was known as the geocentric model.

Corrected:
In ancient times, people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This was known as the geocentric model.



Prior Context:


Original:
First half of January 1943. Everyone is scared. Every night hundreds of planes pass over Holland on their way to German cities to sow their bombs on German soil. Every hour hundreds, or maybe even thousands of people are being killed in Russia and Africa. No one can keep out of the conflict. The entire world is at war, and even though the Allies are doing better, the end is nowhere in sight. These are 13-year-old Anne Frank''s thoughts on January 13, 1943 while she is locked away in hiding from the Nazis in Amsterdam. This is War Against Humanity, a series of World War Two in Real Time. I''m Spartacus Olsson. Today we will let Anne Frank''s diary entry for that day guide us through the war against humanity. Among other things, we will see how she writes of how fortunate they are in their Dutch hiding place to have food when many go hungry. And as we look back at the end of December 1942, we see that this situation is by no means restricted to the Netherlands. In some places it is not hunger, but famine. The worst hit areas are on or near the front lines, like Ukraine, Henan China, and Bengal, British India. Also, as the year ended, a year-long trickle of information revealing the Nazi genocide of the Jews culminated in a flood of revelation that, as shocking as it was, didn''t even come near the actual scope. A genocide that German Führer Adolf Hitler, Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler, Reichsjustizminister Otto Thirak, and their willing helpers then expanded to anyone and everyone they considered undesirable. Or should I say, convenient to make disappear, as it now includes Polish civilians living in places that the Nazis want ethnic Germans to get. And forced relocation or deportation for the gain of Germany is also on Anne Frank''s mind when she writes, the Christians in Holland are also living in fear because their sons are being sent to Germany. And they are sent en masse. The pressure on the German war machine is dragging on the economy. Last month alone Hitler ordered the conscription of 300,000 German into the Wehrmacht. The labor shortages are further exasperated by Nazi ethnic labor policies that have excluded parts of society from the workforce. The solution is to add more slaves. On January 1, Fritz Sauckel, the slave master of Europe, requests a further 250,000 French laborers for the German workforce.

', 'First half of January 1943. Everyone is scared. Every night, hundreds of planes pass over Holland on their way to German cities to sow their bombs on German soil. Every hour, hundreds, or maybe even thousands of people are being killed in Russia and Africa. No one can keep out of the conflict. The entire world is at war, and even though the Allies are doing better, the end is nowhere in sight.

These are 13-year-old Anne Frank''s thoughts on January 13, 1943, while she is locked away in hiding from the Nazis in Amsterdam. This is War Against Humanity, a series on World War Two in Real Time. I''m Spartacus Olsson. Today, we will let Anne Frank''s diary entry for that day guide us through the war against humanity. Among other things, we will see how she writes of how fortunate they are in their Dutch hiding place to have food when many go hungry.

And as we look back at the end of December 1942, we see that this situation is by no means restricted to the Netherlands. In some places, it is not hunger, but famine. The worst-hit areas are on or near the front lines, like Ukraine, Henan China, and Bengal, British India.

Also, as the year ended, a year-long trickle of information revealing the Nazi genocide of the Jews culminated in a flood of revelation that, as shocking as it was, didn''t even come near the actual scope. A genocide that German Führer Adolf Hitler, Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler, Reichsjustizminister Otto Thirak, and their willing helpers then expanded to anyone and everyone they considered undesirable. Or should I say, convenient to make disappear, as it now includes Polish civilians living in places that the Nazis want ethnic Germans to get. And forced relocation or deportation for the gain of Germany is also on Anne Frank''s mind when she writes the Christians in Holland are also living in fear because their sons are being sent to Germany. And they are sent en masse.

The pressure on the German war machine is dragging on the economy. Last month alone, Hitler ordered the conscription of 300,000 Germans into the Wehrmacht. The labor shortages are further exacerbated by Nazi ethnic labor policies that have excluded parts of society from the workforce. The solution is to add more slaves. On January 1, Fritz Sauckel, the slave master of Europe, requests a further 250,000 French laborers for the German workforce.')
,('32', '2', '2022-01-13', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.



Prior Context:
ed by Nazi ethnic labor policies that have excluded parts of society from the workforce. The solution is to add more slaves. On January 1, Fritz Sauckel, the slave master of Europe, requests a further 250,000 French laborers for the German workforce.

Original:
On January 12, during a meeting in Berthesgaden, Pierre Laval, Prime Minister of the Vichy French puppet regime, promises to send another 400,000 skilled workers to Germany. The measures will be met by resistance from the French, causing big delays to meet the Another way for the Germans to fill their fields and factories is by extracting as much labor from the large group of disposable Jews whose fate has already been signed. In December, Himmler instructed Gestapo leader Heinrich Müller that the police is expected to deliver 45,000 more slaves to the concentration camps. Müller scrambles his forces, urging them that every single worker counts. He manages to find 45,000 Jewish workers in several ghettos in Eastern Europe, 30,000 from the Bialystok district, roughly 10,000 from Theresienstadt, and some other from Western and Central Europe. However, Müller reports to Himmler that the vast majority of the workers are unfit for work and are instead gassed on arrival. So instead, police jails are emptied and workers punished for discipline violations are deported to the East. Miners suspected of being partisans in the Generalgouvernement and occupied Soviet Union become apprentices in the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps. Ahn writes about the Razzias to round up these people destined for slaughter by labor. Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor, helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They''re allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then they''re robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart. Men, women, and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone. In 1942, roughly 40,000 Jewish people have been deported to the labor camps and extermination factories in occupied Poland. A large majority of them have obeyed the calls to report for labor service. the Nazis had hoped for more volunteers. To make up the deficit, people are violently abducted from the streets of the Jewish districts in Amsterdam, or simply taken from their homes. Until now, those considered Jewish, who are already in Nazi-led labor camps on Dutch soil, or in hospitals, orphanages, or caring homes, have been left alone.

', 'On January 12, during a meeting in Berchtesgaden, Pierre Laval, Prime Minister of the Vichy French puppet regime, promises to send another 400,000 skilled workers to Germany. The measures will be met with resistance from the French, causing big delays to meet the demand. Another way for the Germans to fill their fields and factories is by extracting as much labor from the large group of disposable Jews whose fate has already been signed. In December, Himmler instructed Gestapo leader Heinrich Müller that the police are expected to deliver 45,000 more slaves to the concentration camps. Müller scrambles his forces, urging them that every single worker counts. He manages to find 45,000 Jewish workers in several ghettos in Eastern Europe, 30,000 from the Bialystok district, roughly 10,000 from Theresienstadt, and some others from Western and Central Europe. However, Müller reports to Himmler that the vast majority of the workers are unfit for work and are instead gassed on arrival. So instead, police jails are emptied and workers punished for discipline violations are deported to the East. Miners suspected of being partisans in the Generalgouvernement and occupied Soviet Union become apprentices in the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps. Ahn writes about the Razzias to round up these people destined for slaughter by labor. Terrible things are happening outside. At any time of night and day, poor, helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. They''re allowed to take only a knapsack and a little cash with them, and even then they''re robbed of these possessions on the way. Families are torn apart. Men, women, and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared. Women return from shopping to find their houses sealed, their families gone. In 1942, roughly 40,000 Jewish people have been deported to the labor camps and extermination factories in occupied Poland. A large majority of them have obeyed the calls to report for labor service. The Nazis had hoped for more volunteers. To make up the deficit, people are violently abducted from the streets of the Jewish districts in Amsterdam or simply taken from their homes. Until now, those considered Jewish, who are already in Nazi-led labor camps on Dutch soil, or in hospitals, orphanages, or caring homes, have been left alone.')
,('32', '3', '2022-01-13', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending



Prior Context:
ed from the streets of the Jewish districts in Amsterdam, or simply taken from their homes. Until now, those considered Jewish, who are already in Nazi-led labor camps on Dutch soil, or in hospitals, orphanages, or caring homes, have been left alone.

Original:
But Ferdinand Aus der Fünden Head of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Amsterdam, reporting to the Reich Security Main Office, Eichmann''s department, is impatient. Roughly 100,000 Jews remain in the Netherlands, the majority of them out in the open. Funten and his superiors want them gone. This month five more transports will leave Westerbork to Auschwitz-Birkenau. On 11 January, for example, a train leaves with 750 Jewish prisoners aboard. On arrival, an SS officer triages them on the platform. The majority, 561 people, are led straight to the gas chambers, while 88 men and 101 women go to the Birkenau war camp. But even for those selected as slaves, prospects are grim. Mortality rates are so high that on December 31st one of the Reich Main Security Office officials asked the concentration camp system leader Oswald Pohl, what is the point of all these arrests if so many new prisoners die so quickly inside the concentration camps? An exchange that reveals the reality of the tensions in the higher Nazi echelons. Some want to squeeze every single drop of sweat out of the Jewish people before murdering them, others can''t wait. On January 9, Himmler visits the Warsaw Ghetto. He is infuriated to see that roughly 40,000 to 50,000 people perceived as Jewish with working permits are still alive there. Himmler orders SS and police leader of the Warsaw area, Ferdinand von Sammen-Frankenegger, to liquidate the remaining people in the ghetto by February 15. 8,000 will be murdered in Treblinka already the very next days. Only 16,000 people working in armament plants are to be left alive and relocated to a concentration camp. This development rattles those who have until now believed that a worker designation would save them from extermination. Their worries are compounded as news spreads of more such ghetto eliminations. Like when on the 4th, the Czestochowa Ghetto, a small act of resistance by some members of the Jewish Fighter Organization, triggers heavy reprisals, with 300 children and women sent to the Radom Ghetto, and then onwards to be gassed to death along with 4,500 Radom Jews. While the situation in Poland looks hopeless, and Amsterdam onrides of her hopes that the Allies know what is happening and will come to her and everyone''s savior soon. They do know, and know more every day. On January 11, British Signal Intelligence intercepts a German Enigma encoded message. They decrypt it, but don''t immediately understand what they''re reading.

', 'But Ferdinand Aus der Fünden, Head of the Central Office for Jewish Emigration in Amsterdam, reporting to the Reich Security Main Office (Eichmann''s department), is impatient. Roughly 100,000 Jews remain in the Netherlands, the majority of them out in the open. Funten and his superiors want them gone. This month, five more transports will leave Westerbork for Auschwitz-Birkenau. On January 11, for example, a train leaves with 750 Jewish prisoners aboard. On arrival, an SS officer triages them on the platform. The majority, 561 people, are led straight to the gas chambers, while 88 men and 101 women go to the Birkenau war camp. But even for those selected as slaves, prospects are grim. Mortality rates are so high that on December 31st, one of the Reich Main Security Office officials asked the concentration camp system leader Oswald Pohl, "What is the point of all these arrests if so many new prisoners die so quickly inside the concentration camps?" An exchange that reveals the reality of the tensions in the higher Nazi echelons. Some want to squeeze every single drop of sweat out of the Jewish people before murdering them, others can''t wait. On January 9, Himmler visits the Warsaw Ghetto. He is infuriated to see that roughly 40,000 to 50,000 people perceived as Jewish, with working permits, are still alive there. Himmler orders SS and police leader of the Warsaw area, Ferdinand von Sammen-Frankenegger, to liquidate the remaining people in the ghetto by February 15. 8,000 will be murdered in Treblinka in the very next days. Only 16,000 people working in armament plants are to be left alive and relocated to a concentration camp. This development rattles those who have until now believed that a worker designation would save them from extermination. Their worries are compounded as news spreads of more such ghetto eliminations. For example, on the 4th, the Czestochowa Ghetto, a small act of resistance by some members of the Jewish Fighter Organization triggers heavy reprisals, with 300 children and women sent to the Radom Ghetto, and then onwards to be gassed to death along with 4,500 Radom Jews. While the situation in Poland looks hopeless, Amsterdam holds onto her hopes that the Allies know what is happening and will come to her and everyone''s savior soon. They do know, and know more every day. On January 11, British Signal Intelligence intercepts a German Enigma-encoded message. They decrypt it but don''t immediately understand what they''re reading.')
,('32', '4', '2022-01-13', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.



Prior Context:
ing and will come to her and everyone''s savior soon. They do know, and know more every day. On January 11, British Signal Intelligence intercepts a German Enigma encoded message. They decrypt it, but don''t immediately understand what they''re reading.

Original:
It''s a message from Sturmbannführer Hans Höfle, SS and police leader in Lublin, to Adolf Eichmann and the security police leader in Krakow, Franz Heim. It lists the 14-day report for Operation Reinhardt for the last two weeks of December. It says L 12,761, B 0, S 515, T 10,335, totaling 23,611. It also has the total situation of December 31, 1942. L 24,733, B 434,508, S 101,370, T 713,555, totaling 1,274,166. What the British have in their hands is the report card for those taken to Lublin, Majdanek, Bebczec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. The kill tally is based primarily on railway data and the number of human victims is underestimated. But the Germans have handed the British hard evidence of the murder of close to 1.3 million Jews in less than a year''s time. On January 7, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivers his State of the Union speech and gives voice to their resolve to bring to the enemy their own medicine. He announces the increased bombing of Germany and Italy and says, Roosevelt''s clear words as to the responsibility for this war is met in Germany with a press campaign to discredit the Allies and paint them as the criminals responsible for this war. The Nazi-controlled media lays on heavily with headlines like, the madman in the White House wants to wash himself clean of his blood guilt, or Roosevelt''s most evil attempted falsehoods. The SS conclude in their reports that the press campaign sometimes has the reverse effect on the Germans. The headlines are so polemic that some smell something fishy, expressing that such loud protests might be a sign that the Allies have a point, or as the SS put it themselves, struck dogs bark especially loud. But one thing is bringing resolve to the German people according to the SS, the bombing of their cities by the Allies. Because as Anne noted already now, every night hundreds of planes pass over Holland on their way to German cities to sow their bombs on German soil. But according to the SS Situation Report, as much as it devastates the immediate victims, it has been found not to break the German people''s morale and resolve, but to harden an effect that the Allies also noticed in Great Britain during the Blitz. Nevertheless, the Allies will increase their strategic bombing efforts. On January 14, a secret conference between the United Nations begins in Casablanca, Morocco. It has been two months since the Allies landed in North Africa, and it''s time to determine the further course of the war.

', 'It''s a message from Sturmbannführer Hans Höfle, SS and police leader in Lublin, to Adolf Eichmann and the security police leader in Krakow, Franz Heim. It lists the 14-day report for Operation Reinhardt for the last two weeks of December. It says L 12,761, B 0, S 515, T 10,335, totaling 23,611. It also has the total situation of December 31, 1942: L 24,733, B 434,508, S 101,370, T 713,555, totaling 1,274,166. What the British have in their hands is the report card for those taken to Lublin, Majdanek, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. The kill tally is based primarily on railway data, and the number of human victims is underestimated. But the Germans have handed the British hard evidence of the murder of close to 1.3 million Jews in less than a year''s time.

On January 7, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivers his State of the Union speech and gives voice to their resolve to bring to the enemy their own medicine. He announces the increased bombing of Germany and Italy and says, "Roosevelt''s clear words as to the responsibility for this war is met in Germany with a press campaign to discredit the Allies and paint them as the criminals responsible for this war." The Nazi-controlled media lays on heavily with headlines like "the madman in the White House wants to wash himself clean of his blood guilt" or "Roosevelt''s most evil attempted falsehoods."

The SS conclude in their reports that the press campaign sometimes has the reverse effect on the Germans. The headlines are so polemic that some smell something fishy, expressing that such loud protests might be a sign that the Allies have a point, or as the SS put it themselves, "struck dogs bark especially loud." But one thing is bringing resolve to the German people, according to the SS: the bombing of their cities by the Allies. Because as Anne noted already, now every night hundreds of planes pass over Holland on their way to German cities to sow their bombs on German soil. But according to the SS Situation Report, as much as it devastates the immediate victims, it has been found not to break the German people''s morale and resolve but to harden an effect that the Allies also noticed in Great Britain during the Blitz. Nevertheless, the Allies will increase their strategic bombing efforts.

On January 14, a secret conference between the United Nations begins in Casablanca, Morocco. It has been two months since the Allies landed in North Africa, and it''s time to determine the further course of the war.')
,('32', '5', '2022-01-13', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending



Prior Context:
se their strategic bombing efforts. On January 14, a secret conference between the United Nations begins in Casablanca, Morocco. It has been two months since the Allies landed in North Africa, and it''s time to determine the further course of the war.

Original:
Indy explains more about this in his weekly episodes, but some bits are relevant to the further course of the war against humanity. The British and the Americans are the two major parties at the conference, especially as Soviet de facto dictator Joseph Stalin has chosen not to attend. The Western Allies agree that the Battle of the Atlantic must be won, that the invasion of the European continent will be inevitable, and that the bombing campaign must be intensified. The British will focus on carpet bombing and night raids, and the Americans will attempt their precision bombing strategy during the daytime. It will be total destruction, only to stop with unconditional surrender. The idea is not only to starve Germany''s morale and resolve, but to destroy her resources. It''s going to be an uphill battle for sure. Germany is big. Bombing in 1943 is imprecise and inefficient, rebuilding production lines is fast, and a lot of war production has already moved underground into bunkers anyway. Even if it might work, partly the Nazis have a remedy at hand. More slaves and plundering the occupied lands. Actions that are already now creating suffering for the people under occupation or siege. Winter has come, and with it comes hunger. Last year we saw the civilian population of Leningrad starve to death. Despite the siege, this year is slightly different. Through starvation and evacuations, Leningrad has been reduced to one-fifth of its original population. Furthermore, food rations are higher thanks to smuggled-in supplies and food supplies produced in the city itself. Also, this winter isn''t nearly as bitter as the one in 1941-42. Nonetheless, the Leningraders continue to suffer under the siege and its bombardments, and the food rations do still have much to be imagined. On the 12th, Stalin launches Operation Iskra, a relief effort that under the Soviet system is not viewed as certain by the inhabitants. Leningrader Vera Imber writes in her diary on the 16th, Ordinary siege life goes on, but everyone is waiting. Nobody says anything. Nobody dares to, in case a wrong word gets to wherever our fate is being decided and changes it all. I''m perplexed and bewildered. I can''t find a place for myself. I try to write and can''t.'' But hunger is no longer just for the besieged. The German plunder of the European economies and lands now impact all who live under the swastika. Anne writes how the children in this neighborhood run around in thin shirts and wooden shoes.

', 'Indy explains more about this in his weekly episodes, but some bits are relevant to the further course of the war against humanity. The British and the Americans are the two major parties at the conference, especially as Soviet de facto dictator Joseph Stalin has chosen not to attend. The Western Allies agree that the Battle of the Atlantic must be won, that the invasion of the European continent will be inevitable, and that the bombing campaign must be intensified. The British will focus on carpet bombing and night raids, and the Americans will attempt their precision bombing strategy during the daytime. It will be total destruction, only to stop with unconditional surrender. The idea is not only to starve Germany''s morale and resolve but to destroy her resources. It''s going to be an uphill battle for sure. Germany is big. Bombing in 1943 is imprecise and inefficient. Rebuilding production lines is fast, and a lot of war production has already moved underground into bunkers anyway. Even if it might work, partly the Nazis have a remedy at hand. More slaves and plundering the occupied lands. Actions that are already now creating suffering for the people under occupation or siege. Winter has come, and with it comes hunger. Last year we saw the civilian population of Leningrad starve to death. Despite the siege, this year is slightly different. Through starvation and evacuations, Leningrad has been reduced to one-fifth of its original population. Furthermore, food rations are higher thanks to smuggled-in supplies and food supplies produced in the city itself. Also, this winter isn''t nearly as bitter as the one in 1941-42. Nonetheless, the Leningraders continue to suffer under the siege and its bombardments, and the food rations do still have much to be imagined. On the 12th, Stalin launches Operation Iskra, a relief effort that under the Soviet system is not viewed as certain by the inhabitants. Leningrader Vera Imber writes in her diary on the 16th, "Ordinary siege life goes on, but everyone is waiting. Nobody says anything. Nobody dares to, in case a wrong word gets to wherever our fate is being decided and changes it all. I''m perplexed and bewildered. I can''t find a place for myself. I try to write and can''t." But hunger is no longer just for the besieged. The German plunder of the European economies and lands now impact all who live under the swastika. Anne writes how the children in this neighborhood run around in thin shirts and wooden shoes.')
,('32', '6', '2022-01-13', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?



Prior Context:
nd can''t.'' But hunger is no longer just for the besieged. The German plunder of the European economies and lands now impact all who live under the swastika. Anne writes how the children in this neighborhood run around in thin shirts and wooden shoes.

Original:
They have no coats, no socks, no caps, and no one had to help them. Gnawing on a carrot to still their hunger pangs, they walk from their cold houses through cold streets to an even colder classroom. Things have gotten so bad in Holland that hordes of children stop passers-by in streets to beg for a piece of bread. As of April 1941, practically everything in the Dutch diet has been rationed, even rudimentary things like potatoes, milk, sugar, cheese, bread, butter, you name it. Partly it is the result of world trade coming to a halt, in case of the Netherlands the flow of goods from its colonies. Meanwhile, the Germans are milking the Dutch economy. They have seized materials, machinery, food stocks, and laborers. The hardest hit are the ones without any way to secure ration cards, people in hiding without money or a network, or orphaned children whose parents have been abducted by the Germans. Still though, the situation in the Netherlands is not quite as dire for everyone as Anne perceives. Rations are low, but have been relatively stable throughout 1942 and still is in the winter of 1943. The situation in other parts of the world is, however, different. In China, the ongoing famine in Henan is claiming thousands of lives every day, and a similar famine in Bengal, India is brewing. Relative to all the suffering that is going on, Anne counts her blessings. As for us, we''re quite fortunate, luckier than the millions of people. We''re still safe and unbothered and are what you may call eating up our money. We''re so selfish that we talk about after the war and look forward to new clothes and shoes, when actually we should be saving every penny to help others when the war is over, to salvage whatever we can. But as 1943 begins, that war is nowhere near an end, and Anne seems aware of how much patience is still demanded of her young existence, and that it might be, in the end, futile. I could spend hours telling you about the suffering the war has brought, I''d only make myself more miserable. All we can do is wait, as calmly as possible, for it to end. Jews and Christians alike are waiting. The whole world is waiting. And many are waiting for death. Never forget.

', 'They have no coats, no socks, no caps, and no one has to help them. Gnawing on a carrot to still their hunger pangs, they walk from their cold houses through cold streets to an even colder classroom. Things have gotten so bad in Holland that hordes of children stop passers-by in the streets to beg for a piece of bread. As of April 1941, practically everything in the Dutch diet has been rationed, even rudimentary things like potatoes, milk, sugar, cheese, bread, butter, you name it. Partly it is the result of world trade coming to a halt, in the case of the Netherlands, the flow of goods from its colonies. Meanwhile, the Germans are milking the Dutch economy. They have seized materials, machinery, food stocks, and laborers. The hardest hit are the ones without any way to secure ration cards, people in hiding without money or a network, or orphaned children whose parents have been abducted by the Germans. Still, though, the situation in the Netherlands is not quite as dire for everyone as Anne perceives. Rations are low but have been relatively stable throughout 1942 and still are in the winter of 1943. The situation in other parts of the world is, however, different. In China, the ongoing famine in Henan is claiming thousands of lives every day, and a similar famine in Bengal, India, is brewing. Relative to all the suffering that is going on, Anne counts her blessings. As for us, we''re quite fortunate, luckier than the millions of people. We''re still safe and unbothered and are what you may call eating up our money. We''re so selfish that we talk about after the war and look forward to new clothes and shoes when actually we should be saving every penny to help others when the war is over, to salvage whatever we can. But as 1943 begins, that war is nowhere near an end, and Anne seems aware of how much patience is still demanded of her young existence, and that it might be, in the end, futile. I could spend hours telling you about the suffering the war has brought, I''d only make myself more miserable. All we can do is wait, as calmly as possible, for it to end. Jews and Christians alike are waiting. The whole world is waiting. And many are waiting for death. Never forget.')
,('36', '1', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
In the beggining, there was only chaos and void. then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Corrected:
In the beginning, there was only chaos and void. Then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story

Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story



Prior Context:


Original:
What''s thwartin'' my Sophie''s? I''m Robert Evans, host of Behind the Bastards, and during the break we took between this chapter and the last one, I stole back the case of Perrier, and I''m going to throw it at some point. Sophie''s standing next to me right now trying to get it back, but she''s not. She''s not gonna. No, but I need a drink. If I open the Perrier can to get a drink to wet my throat, then when I throw it, it''s just gonna do more damage. One out and you''re gonna throw that one. Well now I''m not What I love about visual things is that they''re the ideal thing to do on a podcast Famed visual medium. We''re doing great chapter 5 a hidden civil war cool One of the issues with discussing the history of secret organizations formed to overthrow the government is that, for obvious reasons, an awful lot is left in shadow. We do not know the precise date or the hour that the Order was founded. We do not know its exact composition or to what precise extent men like Louis Beam and William Pierce were involved in it. Officially, the Order was formed. Probably not a lot. Certainly not a lot. Officially, the Order was founded in September of 1983 by Robert Matthews during a convention he attended for Peirce''s National Alliance in Arlington. While Beame and Peirce tended to approach the issue of sparking a fascist revolution rather differently, Matthews had deep ties to both men. He was profoundly influenced by Beame''s ideas and writings, and was also an obsessive fan of the Turner Diaries. He essentially acted as a bridge between the two sides of the Vanguardist movement, tying Beams, Klansman, and Christian Identity nuts together with Pierce''s Neo-Nazis. William Pierce called the Order the Aryan Resistance Movement. Robert Miles called it the Bruderschweigen, or Silent Brotherhood. But to Bob Matthews, and most of the members, it was known simply as The Order, in direct imitation of the group responsible for organizing the fictional white nationalist insurgency in the Turner Diaries. There were originally nine men, three from the National Alliance, four from the Aryan Nations, and one former Klansman. So that''s cool. Now Matthews devised a six-step strategy for his new terror organization. He would start by recruiting a base of soldiers around the nation and train them at sundry fascist compounds around the country. Once Matthews had a trained corps of soldiers, they would begin committing robberies and counterfeiting money.

', 'What''s happening, my sophie''s? I''m Robert Evans, host of Behind the Bastards, and during the break we took between this chapter and the last one, I stole back the case of Perrier, and I''m going to throw it at some point. Sophie''s standing next to me right now trying to get it back, but she''s not. She''s not gonna. No, but I need a drink. If I open the Perrier can to get a drink to wet my throat, then when I throw it, it''s just gonna do more damage. One out and you''re gonna throw that one. Well now I''m not. What I love about visual things is that they''re the ideal thing to do on a podcast. Famed visual medium. We''re doing great chapter 5, a hidden civil war. Cool. One of the issues with discussing the history of secret organizations formed to overthrow the government is that, for obvious reasons, an awful lot is left in shadow. We do not know the precise date or the hour that the Order was founded. We do not know its exact composition or to what precise extent men like Louis Beam and William Pierce were involved in it. Officially, the Order was formed. Probably not a lot. Certainly not a lot. Officially, the Order was founded in September of 1983 by Robert Matthews during a convention he attended for Pierce''s National Alliance in Arlington. While Beam and Pierce tended to approach the issue of sparking a fascist revolution rather differently, Matthews had deep ties to both men. He was profoundly influenced by Beam''s ideas and writings, and was also an obsessive fan of the Turner Diaries. He essentially acted as a bridge between the two sides of the Vanguardist movement, tying Beam''s Klansman and Christian Identity nuts together with Pierce''s Neo-Nazis. William Pierce called the Order the Aryan Resistance Movement. Robert Miles called it the Bruderschweigen, or Silent Brotherhood. But to Bob Matthews, and most of the members, it was known simply as The Order, in direct imitation of the group responsible for organizing the fictional white nationalist insurgency in the Turner Diaries. There were originally nine men, three from the National Alliance, four from the Aryan Nations, and one former Klansman. So that''s cool. Now Matthews devised a six-step strategy for his new terror organization. He would start by recruiting a base of soldiers around the nation and train them at sundry fascist compounds around the country. Once Matthews had a trained corps of soldiers, they would begin committing robberies and counterfeiting money.')
,('36', '2', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.



Prior Context:
anization. He would start by recruiting a base of soldiers around the nation and train them at sundry fascist compounds around the country. Once Matthews had a trained corps of soldiers, they would begin committing robberies and counterfeiting money.

Original:
This would fund the purchase of an arsenal, which would allow them to commit more ambitious robberies and raise millions of dollars, which they would then dispense to different fascist groups around the nation. In essence, Bob Matthews had looked out at all the white supremacist compounds around the country, places like Elohim City, the Aryan Nations, Nehemiah Township, and various Posse Comitatus communities. He decided these groups had potential if they were connected and funded more effectively. The Order was a way to do that. In carrying out this plan, Matthews was both working to fulfill Pierce''s dream of a big-tent fascist organization and actively funding Beam''s plan to connect these different groups via the early internet. Okay. Cool. It''s a bunch of cool buds hanging out, but you''re cool dudes having cool friends The order''s end goal was a white ethno state in the Pacific Northwest here to Matthews was following in the footsteps of other fascist thinkers the Northwest imperative as it is now known first propped up in the 1970s and was initially cheered on by Christian identity pastor and Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler and creating the order Matthews had since synthesized decades of far-right thinking with his love of the Turner Diaries into a serious plan for revolution On paper, it looked kind of silly. It was even based off of a piece of speculative science fiction. But Matthews quickly turned his plans into action. On October 28, 1983, Bob and several of his men held up an adult bookstore in Spokane, Washington, netting $300. Seems silly, right? Seems silly. Seems not worth it. Seems not worth it. But this small-scale crime was just the start of many. Matthews and his crew kept on robbing. Two months later, they stole $25,000 from a Seattle bank, then $3,600 from a Spokane bank. They robbed a courier after picking up the daily cash receipts from a Shoney''s restaurant and made out with $8,000. The order professionalized quickly, and within a matter of months, they''d also started counterfeiting $50 bills. They really didn''t need to do that. It would turn out to have been a bad idea. But the idea was that by counterfeiting money they could both damage the state by bringing on financial collapse and that they could make money. By spring 1984, Robert Matthews had proved himself to be a competent and dangerous guerrilla leader, and his order was quickly becoming the biggest new thing in American fascism.

', 'This would fund the purchase of an arsenal, which would allow them to commit more ambitious robberies and raise millions of dollars, which they would then dispense to different fascist groups around the nation. In essence, Bob Matthews had looked out at all the white supremacist compounds around the country, places like Elohim City, the Aryan Nations, Nehemiah Township, and various Posse Comitatus communities. He decided these groups had potential if they were connected and funded more effectively. The Order was a way to do that. In carrying out this plan, Matthews was both working to fulfill Pierce''s dream of a big-tent fascist organization and actively funding Beam''s plan to connect these different groups via the early internet.

Okay. Cool. It''s a bunch of cool buds hanging out, but you''re cool dudes having cool friends.

The Order''s end goal was a white ethno-state in the Pacific Northwest. Here, Matthews was following in the footsteps of other fascist thinkers. The Northwest imperative, as it is now known, first propped up in the 1970s and was initially cheered on by Christian identity pastor and Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler. In creating the Order, Matthews had since synthesized decades of far-right thinking with his love of the Turner Diaries into a serious plan for revolution. On paper, it looked kind of silly. It was even based off of a piece of speculative science fiction. But Matthews quickly turned his plans into action.

On October 28, 1983, Bob and several of his men held up an adult bookstore in Spokane, Washington, netting $300. Seems silly, right? Seems silly. Seems not worth it. Seems not worth it. But this small-scale crime was just the start of many. Matthews and his crew kept on robbing. Two months later, they stole $25,000 from a Seattle bank, then $3,600 from a Spokane bank. They robbed a courier after picking up the daily cash receipts from a Shoney''s restaurant and made out with $8,000. The Order professionalized quickly, and within a matter of months, they''d also started counterfeiting $50 bills. They really didn''t need to do that. It would turn out to have been a bad idea. But the idea was that by counterfeiting money, they could both damage the state by bringing on financial collapse and that they could make money.

By spring 1984, Robert Matthews had proved himself to be a competent and dangerous guerrilla leader, and his Order was quickly becoming the biggest new thing in American fascism.')
,('36', '3', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.



Prior Context:
state by bringing on financial collapse and that they could make money. By spring 1984, Robert Matthews had proved himself to be a competent and dangerous guerrilla leader, and his order was quickly becoming the biggest new thing in American fascism.

Original:
Dozens of young militants flocked to join and do their part to further the cause. They flooded in from other far-right groups with names like the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. Sundry Possecomitatus grews. All of them are so bad. In assorted KKK chapters. Yeah, they''re all, they''re, they''re fucking nerds. It just, it doesn''t, it always grosses me out. Yeah, the Proud Boys are just one variation on a theme of terrible names for right-wing terrorist groups. Yeah. In order to build camaraderie and loyalty, Matthews developed rituals for his warrior elite. I''m going to quote now from Bring the War Home. They took their induction oath on Matthew''s farm. They stood in a circle around a white female infant who symbolized the race they sought to protect. They raised their arms in a Hitler salute. "''I, as a free Aryan man,'' they recited, "''hereby swear an unrelenting oath "''upon the green graves of our sires, "''upon the children in the wombs of our wives.'' "''They swore that they had no fear of death or foe, "''but had a sacred duty to do whatever is necessary "''to deliver our people from the Jew "''and bring total victory to the Aryan race. "''They pledged secrecy about all activities to follow. "''They swore to rescue any of their number-taken prisoner. "''Should an enemy agent hurt you,'' "''they promised their silent brothers, "''I will chase him to the ends of the earth "''and remove his head from his body. Their oath recognized them as racial warriors, but also transformed them into weapons. My brothers, let us be God''s battle axe and weapons of war. Let us go forth by ones and twos, by scores and legions as true Aryan men, they vowed. We are in a state of war and will not lay down our weapons until we have driven the enemy into the sea and reclaimed the land which was promised to our fathers of old and through our blood and his will becomes the land of our children to be. I cannot believe these nerds. You look so disgusted to that entire thing. I was just like, oh, I hate it so much. Some sexist, racist, awful white supremacist bullshit. But it''s also so, they''re so embarrassing. It''s also what it is. It''s like they''re so evil and they''re so lame. This is part of why I think that making stuff like Dungeons & Dragons and LARPing more socially acceptable might reduce the number of young men who do this. A healthier outlet. Yeah, just give them an excuse to talk about axes and pretend they''re in a Tolkien novel.

', 'Dozens of young militants flocked to join and do their part to further the cause. They flooded in from other far-right groups with names like the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. Sundry Possecomitatus grew. All of them are so bad. In assorted KKK chapters. Yeah, they''re all, they''re, they''re fucking nerds. It just, it doesn''t, it always grosses me out.

Yeah, the Proud Boys are just one variation on a theme of terrible names for right-wing terrorist groups. Yeah. In order to build camaraderie and loyalty, Matthews developed rituals for his warrior elite. I''m going to quote now from Bring the War Home. They took their induction oath on Matthews''s farm. They stood in a circle around a white female infant who symbolized the race they sought to protect. They raised their arms in a Hitler salute.

"''I, as a free Aryan man,'' they recited, "''hereby swear an unrelenting oath "''upon the green graves of our sires, "''upon the children in the wombs of our wives.'' "''They swore that they had no fear of death or foe, "''but had a sacred duty to do whatever is necessary "''to deliver our people from the Jew "''and bring total victory to the Aryan race. "''They pledged secrecy about all activities to follow. "''They swore to rescue any of their number-taken prisoner. "''Should an enemy agent hurt you,'' "''they promised their silent brothers, "''I will chase him to the ends of the earth "''and remove his head from his body.''"

Their oath recognized them as racial warriors but also transformed them into weapons.

"My brothers, let us be God''s battle axe and weapons of war. Let us go forth by ones and twos, by scores and legions as true Aryan men," they vowed. "We are in a state of war and will not lay down our weapons until we have driven the enemy into the sea and reclaimed the land which was promised to our fathers of old and through our blood and his will becomes the land of our children to be."

"I cannot believe these nerds. You look so disgusted to that entire thing. I was just like, oh, I hate it so much. Some sexist, racist, awful white supremacist bullshit. But it''s also so, they''re so embarrassing. It''s also what it is. It''s like they''re so evil and they''re so lame. This is part of why I think that making stuff like Dungeons & Dragons and LARPing more socially acceptable might reduce the number of young men who do this. A healthier outlet."

"Yeah, just give them an excuse to talk about axes and pretend they''re in a Tolkien novel."')
,('36', '4', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.



Prior Context:
why I think that making stuff like Dungeons & Dragons and LARPing more socially acceptable might reduce the number of young men who do this. A healthier outlet. Yeah, just give them an excuse to talk about axes and pretend they''re in a Tolkien novel.

Original:
And believe in magical things instead of hating people. Accept gamers, you know. Yeah, that really kind of proves me incorrect on that because they just did both. They just do both, yeah. In March 1984, the Order carried out their first robbery of an armored car. They netted $43,000. They robbed the same armored car again in April and got their biggest score yet, $230,000. Later that month, Order members also bombed a synagogue in Boise, Idaho. Okay. As the summer of 1984 rolled along, Matthews and other members of his inner circle began to worry that one of their men, Walter West, might talk. Two of Bob''s men shot and buried him in the woods on June 1st. A little more than two weeks later, on June 17th, Matthews and three of his men shot and killed Alan Berg, a Jewish radio host and anti-fascist who regularly attacked neo-Nazis on the air. The Berg murder officially erased the order''s profile and guaranteed major law enforcement attention. The group''s danger was reinforced a month later when they heisted a Brinks truck in Ukiah, California and made off with a staggering $3.6 million. Yep, wonder where all that money went. Let''s read the next paragraph. Now flush with enough cash to wage a revolution, Matthews and his order began buying up guns like they were going out of style. That''s where it went. They also purchased a 300-acre plot of land in Missouri and 110 acres in Idaho. Each participant in the robbery got $40,000, but the bulk of the money went to other fascists around the country. Different organizations received grants in $100,000 increments. Matthews also tithed- Here''s your Nazi grant. Here''s your Nazi grant. Do Nazi research. Yeah, good luck with your Nazi stuff. Matthews also tithed 10% of his stolen money to the Aryan nations, so that''s good Yeah, you know just give him give him back. They''re really hurting for cash. Yeah, you know who else is hurting for cash. Oh, that''s a bad ad transition Sophie You know who else wants your cash Who and is better than Nazis yeah? the advertisers for this show. That''s good. I am not doing great today. I do have Chekhov''s case of Perrier. No, not yet. I feel like I have to really build it up because it''s definitely gonna be the last thing I get to throw in this room. Sophie''s just giving me a look. Anyway, products! We''re back. How you doing, Sophie? Yeah, you should make sure the dog''s on the other side of the room, because who knows when I''ll throw this Perrier. Just look for the dog. Throw it. I will.

', 'And believe in magical things instead of hating people. Accept gamers, you know? Yeah, that really kind of proves me incorrect on that because they just did both. They just do both, yeah.

In March 1984, the Order carried out their first robbery of an armored car. They netted $43,000. They robbed the same armored car again in April and got their biggest score yet, $230,000. Later that month, Order members also bombed a synagogue in Boise, Idaho. Okay.

As the summer of 1984 rolled along, Matthews and other members of his inner circle began to worry that one of their men, Walter West, might talk. Two of Bob''s men shot and buried him in the woods on June 1st. A little more than two weeks later, on June 17th, Matthews and three of his men shot and killed Alan Berg, a Jewish radio host and anti-fascist who regularly attacked neo-Nazis on the air. The Berg murder officially erased the order''s profile and guaranteed major law enforcement attention.

The group''s danger was reinforced a month later when they heisted a Brinks truck in Ukiah, California and made off with a staggering $3.6 million. Yep, wonder where all that money went. Let''s read the next paragraph.

Now flush with enough cash to wage a revolution, Matthews and his order began buying up guns like they were going out of style. That''s where it went. They also purchased a 300-acre plot of land in Missouri and 110 acres in Idaho. Each participant in the robbery got $40,000, but the bulk of the money went to other fascists around the country. Different organizations received grants in $100,000 increments. Matthews also tithed- Here''s your Nazi grant. Here''s your Nazi grant. Do Nazi research. Yeah, good luck with your Nazi stuff.

Matthews also tithed 10% of his stolen money to the Aryan nations, so that''s good. Yeah, you know, just give him give him back. They''re really hurting for cash. Yeah, you know who else is hurting for cash? Oh, that''s a bad ad transition, Sophie. You know who else wants your cash? Who? And is better than Nazis? Yeah, the advertisers for this show. That''s good. I am not doing great today. I do have Chekhov''s case of Perrier. No, not yet. I feel like I have to really build it up because it''s definitely gonna be the last thing I get to throw in this room. Sophie''s just giving me a look. Anyway, products! We''re back.

How you doing, Sophie? Yeah, you should make sure the dog''s on the other side of the room because who knows when I''ll throw this Perrier. Just look for the dog. Throw it. I will.')
,('36', '5', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.



Prior Context:
is room. Sophie''s just giving me a look. Anyway, products! We''re back. How you doing, Sophie? Yeah, you should make sure the dog''s on the other side of the room, because who knows when I''ll throw this Perrier. Just look for the dog. Throw it. I will.

Original:
All right. Now, members of the order developed code names and acquired fake IDs. Matthews even had silver medallions crafted to act as proof of membership. Cool. Yeah, got it. Oh, it''s about to get cooler, Katie, because they had nicknames. What? Nicknames like Lone Wolf, Field Marshal, Yosemite Sam. Did you say Veal Marshal? Field Marshal. Oh, these are bad. Yosemite Sam. One member was nicknamed Mr. Closet for his love of assaulting gay men. Oh my God, no. It makes it sound like he''s in the closet, which he probably was. He probably was. Louis Beahm was codenamed Jolly and Lone Star. Pierce was codenamed Brigham after Mormon leader Brigham Young. Both men had medallions. The only good nickname there is Jolly. Man, they are showing themselves. First of all, it''s super lame to pick your own nickname and you know they all picked their own nicknames. Yeah, except for maybe Mr. Closet. I feel like somebody gave him that nickname. But they''re so bad, they''re so lame. They''re so lame. Okay, and bad. They''re silly. And you get it all. It''s like lone wolf. All right. No, you''re not. You''re like a bunch of Nazis. You got your law enforcement, field officer. No, field marshal. Field marshal. All right, like yeah. It''s not like there''s some cops that are Nazis. Well, no, that''s not a field marshal. That''s not a cop thing. Or like law enforcement. No, no, Field Marshal''s like a general level rank, but the Germans had a lot of field, not only Germans, but like. But it''s a military guy. Yeah, it''s a military rank. Yeah, but the same idea. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then you got Yosemite Sam, which is silly. Yep. You got all the things that they are. Yeah, it''s silly. I know exactly who they are. Yeah. In nine months, Bob Matthews had turned his dreams and the theories of men like Beaman Pierce into a real revolutionary movement. He''d made the Turner Diaries real. New recruits to the order were reportedly handed copies of the book. And for a while, law enforcement seemed powerless to do anything to stop them. According to Bring the War Home, quote, even if federal agents and a few journalists were aware of the white power movement, the mainstream public continued to see most white power violence as the work of errant madmen. The phrase lone wolf previously used to describe criminals acting alone was employed increasingly in the 1980s and 90s to describe white power activists.

', 'All right. Now, members of the order developed code names and acquired fake IDs. Matthews even had silver medallions crafted to act as proof of membership. Cool. Yeah, got it. Oh, it''s about to get cooler, Katie, because they had nicknames. What? Nicknames like Lone Wolf, Field Marshal, Yosemite Sam. Did you say Veal Marshal? Field Marshal. Oh, these are bad. Yosemite Sam. One member was nicknamed Mr. Closet for his love of assaulting gay men. Oh my God, no. It makes it sound like he''s in the closet, which he probably was. He probably was. Louis Beahm was codenamed Jolly and Lone Star. Pierce was codenamed Brigham after Mormon leader Brigham Young. Both men had medallions. The only good nickname there is Jolly. Man, they are showing themselves. First of all, it''s super lame to pick your own nickname and you know they all picked their own nicknames. Yeah, except for maybe Mr. Closet. I feel like somebody gave him that nickname. But they''re so bad, they''re so lame. They''re so lame. Okay, and bad. They''re silly. And you get it all. It''s like lone wolf. All right. No, you''re not. You''re like a bunch of Nazis. You got your law enforcement, field officer. No, field marshal. Field marshal. All right, like yeah. It''s not like there''s some cops that are Nazis. Well, no, that''s not a field marshal. That''s not a cop thing. Or like law enforcement. No, no, Field Marshal''s like a general level rank, but the Germans had a lot of field, not only Germans, but like. But it''s a military guy. Yeah, it''s a military rank. Yeah, but the same idea. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then you got Yosemite Sam, which is silly. Yep. You got all the things that they are. Yeah, it''s silly. I know exactly who they are. Yeah. In nine months, Bob Matthews had turned his dreams and the theories of men like Beahm and Pierce into a real revolutionary movement. He''d made the Turner Diaries real. New recruits to the order were reportedly handed copies of the book. And for a while, law enforcement seemed powerless to do anything to stop them. According to Bring the War Home, quote, even if federal agents and a few journalists were aware of the white power movement, the mainstream public continued to see most white power violence as the work of errant madmen. The phrase lone wolf, previously used to describe criminals acting alone, was employed increasingly in the 1980s and 90s to describe white power activists.')
,('36', '6', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.



Prior Context:
, the mainstream public continued to see most white power violence as the work of errant madmen. The phrase lone wolf previously used to describe criminals acting alone was employed increasingly in the 1980s and 90s to describe white power activists.

Original:
This played into the movement''s aim to prevent anyone from putting together a cohesive account of the group''s actions. Yep, that all checks out, doesn''t it? And they''re also silly. So why take them seriously? The history of how we don''t call white terrorists. But you know who we should call terrorists? Antifa. The group that didn''t kill anybody. Made zero people? Yes. Are you suggesting that They''re not. I''m just saying, like, of the groups I''m willing to consider terrorists, Al-Qaeda, the death toll, thousands, right? Yeah. Antifa, death toll, zero. The KKK, death toll, thousands, but they''re not actually a terrorist group in the US. That''s what''s... White nationalist terrorism. It doesn''t seem to be treated as seriously. That''s because they''re a bunch of lone wolves in a pack together. Yeah, you can''t fight lone wolves. But they''re a pack, but they''re alone. Yeah, they''re a lone pack. A pack of lone wolves, which you can''t defend against. An oxymoron is what it is. Okay. Good times. So, the order''s undoing came from a member of the group and a former National Alliance goon named Tom Martinez. Matthews had brought Martinez in to help pass counterfeit bills around his home in Philadelphia. He was caught by the FBI, and he turned informant to avoid prison. The FBI used this information to track Matthews to Portland, Oregon, where they engaged him in a short gun battle. Bob was wounded, but managed to flee to Whidbey Island in Washington with several of his most loyal soldiers. The FBI surrounded the house, and eventually all of Matthews'' men surrendered. But Robert Matthews refused to give up. Alone, he fought the FBI off for an astonishing 40 hours. The Bureau eventually burned the cabin down around Matthews, killing him on December 8, 1984. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, he''s a bit of a hero to these guys to this day. Yeah, I bet he is. Yeah. With their leader dead, the order eventually crumbled, proving, by the way, that Louis Beahm had been right to emphasize leaderless resistance. After five months of arrests around the country, more than 50 members of the order had been arrested. The FBI recovered a great deal of cash, but millions remained unaccounted for. They found what some of that money had bought, though, when they raided the heavily armed Ozarks compound of the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. Law anti-tank rockets and machine guns were found hidden on the property.

', 'This played into the movement''s aim to prevent anyone from putting together a cohesive account of the group''s actions. Yep, that all checks out, doesn''t it? And they''re also silly. So why take them seriously? The history of how we don''t call white terrorists. But you know who we should call terrorists? Antifa. The group that didn''t kill anybody. Made zero people? Yes. Are you suggesting that They''re not. I''m just saying, like, of the groups I''m willing to consider terrorists, Al-Qaeda, the death toll, thousands, right? Yeah. Antifa, death toll, zero. The KKK, death toll, thousands, but they''re not actually a terrorist group in the US. That''s what''s... White nationalist terrorism. It doesn''t seem to be treated as seriously. That''s because they''re a bunch of lone wolves in a pack together. Yeah, you can''t fight lone wolves. But they''re a pack, but they''re alone. Yeah, they''re a lone pack. A pack of lone wolves, which you can''t defend against. An oxymoron is what it is. Okay. Good times. So, the order''s undoing came from a member of the group and a former National Alliance goon named Tom Martinez. Matthews had brought Martinez in to help pass counterfeit bills around his home in Philadelphia. He was caught by the FBI, and he turned informant to avoid prison. The FBI used this information to track Matthews to Portland, Oregon, where they engaged him in a short gun battle. Bob was wounded, but managed to flee to Whidbey Island in Washington with several of his most loyal soldiers. The FBI surrounded the house, and eventually all of Matthews'' men surrendered. But Robert Matthews refused to give up. Alone, he fought the FBI off for an astonishing 40 hours. The Bureau eventually burned the cabin down around Matthews, killing him on December 8, 1984. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, he''s a bit of a hero to these guys to this day. Yeah, I bet he is. Yeah. With their leader dead, the order eventually crumbled, proving, by the way, that Louis Beam had been right to emphasize leaderless resistance. After five months of arrests around the country, more than 50 members of the order had been arrested. The FBI recovered a great deal of cash, but millions remained unaccounted for. They found what some of that money had bought, though, when they raided the heavily armed Ozarks compound of the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. Law anti-tank rockets and machine guns were found hidden on the property.')
,('36', '7', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.



Prior Context:
unaccounted for. They found what some of that money had bought, though, when they raided the heavily armed Ozarks compound of the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord. Law anti-tank rockets and machine guns were found hidden on the property.

Original:
The CSA were not the only group who had bought rocket launchers with the orders they got in gains, however, and not all of those weapons were recovered. This is part of why it became illegal for US servicemen to be members of extremist groups, because all these fucking weapons kept getting into their hands. And that''s the only reason. Yeah, that''s the only reason. It used to be really easy to get military-grade weapons. They did some reforms that have made that harder, apparently. Well, good bully for them. Kudos, the military. Actually, of all the government organizations, they''re the only one with any kind of effective long-term response to any of this. OK. Yeah, that''s true. Yeah. Now, the first trial associated with the order took place in Seattle and included several members of the CSA. They pled guilty on weapons charges and were convicted of racketeering. Next, the U.S. Attorney brought a 93-page indictment against 23 members of the order. Robert Miles, Louis Beam, and William Pierce were not indicted. In the months leading up to the trial, members of the order rolled over on their comrades with unusual regularity. By the time the trial rolled around in September 1985, only 10 of them actually faced trial. This hardened core of loyal racists included David Lane, the man who would years later coin the 14 words that neo-Nazis still use today as a calling card. Yep, during the case, prosecutors specifically noted that the Turner Diaries had acted as a blueprint for Bob Matthews. According to Blood and Politics, quote, In an opening statement, a defense attorney acknowledged that his client was a Klan member and an avowed white supremacist, or white separatist. Now I say white separatist, he continued, because there is a significant difference in an individual who professes to be a white supremacist as opposed to a white separatist. What was that difference? The white separatist is nothing different than a black nationalist who advocates a separation of races, wants to live only with those members of his race. He advocates the fact that when races are mixed together, they cannot survive because of their division in their cultural backgrounds, their upbringing, and their history. The Seattle jury did not buy this distinction between white supremacy and white separatism in 1985, any more than the Supreme Court was willing to ignore separate but equal doctrine in 1954.

', 'The CSA were not the only group who had bought rocket launchers with the orders they got in gains, however, and not all of those weapons were recovered. This is part of why it became illegal for US servicemen to be members of extremist groups, because all these fucking weapons kept getting into their hands. And that''s the only reason. Yeah, that''s the only reason. It used to be really easy to get military-grade weapons. They did some reforms that have made that harder, apparently. Well, good for them. Kudos to the military. Actually, of all the government organizations, they''re the only one with any kind of effective long-term response to any of this. OK. Yeah, that''s true. Yeah.

Now, the first trial associated with the order took place in Seattle and included several members of the CSA. They pled guilty on weapons charges and were convicted of racketeering. Next, the U.S. Attorney brought a 93-page indictment against 23 members of the order. Robert Miles, Louis Beam, and William Pierce were not indicted.

In the months leading up to the trial, members of the order rolled over on their comrades with unusual regularity. By the time the trial rolled around in September 1985, only 10 of them actually faced trial. This hardened core of loyal racists included David Lane, the man who would years later coin the 14 words that neo-Nazis still use today as a calling card.

During the case, prosecutors specifically noted that the Turner Diaries had acted as a blueprint for Bob Matthews. According to Blood and Politics, "In an opening statement, a defense attorney acknowledged that his client was a Klan member and an avowed white supremacist, or white separatist. Now I say white separatist, he continued, because there is a significant difference in an individual who professes to be a white supremacist as opposed to a white separatist. What was that difference? The white separatist is nothing different than a black nationalist who advocates a separation of races, wants to live only with those members of his race. He advocates the fact that when races are mixed together, they cannot survive because of their division in their cultural backgrounds, their upbringing, and their history."

The Seattle jury did not buy this distinction between white supremacy and white separatism in 1985, any more than the Supreme Court was willing to ignore separate but equal doctrine in 1954.')
,('36', '8', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.



Prior Context:
cultural backgrounds, their upbringing, and their history. The Seattle jury did not buy this distinction between white supremacy and white separatism in 1985, any more than the Supreme Court was willing to ignore separate but equal doctrine in 1954.

Original:
Neither did the jury believe defense efforts to impugn the credibility of Aryans who became prosecution witnesses. Nor did jurors accept contentions that the defendant''s beliefs were unrelated to the enumerated crimes. After four months at trial, all were found guilty. Okay, so that''s good. That''s good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Now, in death, Bob Matthews and his order became a symbol for fascists around the country. In Raleigh, North Carolina, hundreds of Nazis rallied under banners that said, we love the order. In Idaho, a group called Order 2 set off several bombs in Coeur d''Alene. The date of Matthew''s death, December 8th, became Martyr''s Day to many neo-Nazis. Some of them started carrying out memorial camping trips near where he had been killed on Whidbey Island. But still, the order had failed in its goals, and that failure had come at a substantial cost. William Beam and Lewis Pierce had not been indicted or charged as a result of Matthew''s activities, but they now found themselves at the center of much more FBI attention. In an operation named Clean Sweep, the Bureau began seeding white supremacist organizations around the country with undercover operatives. Later in 1985, they stopped an Aryan Nation''s plot to kill a government informant. Another terrorist associated with the group was stopped after a bombing a federal building. Several businesses and a rectory in Coeur d''Alene. In 1986, the feds busted William Potter Gale, founder of the Posse Comitatus in Nevada. Gale and several allies were convicted of planning to bomb the IRS. Kinda sounds like an insurgency. Yeah, it kind of does sound like an insurgency. A lot of plans. Yeah. Near the end of 1986, the FBI busted eight members of a new group, the Arizona Patriots, before they could carry out their goal of following in Bob Matthews'' footsteps. The group had planned to rob banks to finance a domestic insurgency. All around the U.S., white supremacists continued to plot and launch attacks. One of these men was Glenn Miller, formerly the leader of a group called the White Patriot Party. He''d received at least $75,000 in order money from Bob Matthews. As the FBI busted more and more of these guys, they found more and more evidence of the Order''s influence and money. And gradually, they pieced together the story of what had really happened, and came to realize that Matthews'' group had sought nothing less than the complete overthrow of the federal government.

', 'Neither did the jury believe defense efforts to impugn the credibility of Aryans who became prosecution witnesses. Nor did jurors accept contentions that the defendant''s beliefs were unrelated to the enumerated crimes. After four months at trial, all were found guilty.

Okay, so that''s good. That''s good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Now, in death, Bob Matthews and his order became a symbol for fascists around the country. In Raleigh, North Carolina, hundreds of Nazis rallied under banners that said, "we love the order." In Idaho, a group called Order 2 set off several bombs in Coeur d''Alene. The date of Matthew''s death, December 8th, became Martyr''s Day to many neo-Nazis. Some of them started carrying out memorial camping trips near where he had been killed on Whidbey Island.

But still, the order had failed in its goals, and that failure had come at a substantial cost. William Beam and Lewis Pierce had not been indicted or charged as a result of Matthew''s activities, but they now found themselves at the center of much more FBI attention. In an operation named Clean Sweep, the Bureau began seeding white supremacist organizations around the country with undercover operatives. Later in 1985, they stopped an Aryan Nation''s plot to kill a government informant. Another terrorist associated with the group was stopped after bombing a federal building, several businesses, and a rectory in Coeur d''Alene. In 1986, the feds busted William Potter Gale, founder of the Posse Comitatus in Nevada. Gale and several allies were convicted of planning to bomb the IRS.

Kinda sounds like an insurgency. Yeah, it kind of does sound like an insurgency. A lot of plans. Yeah.

Near the end of 1986, the FBI busted eight members of a new group, the Arizona Patriots, before they could carry out their goal of following in Bob Matthews'' footsteps. The group had planned to rob banks to finance a domestic insurgency. All around the U.S., white supremacists continued to plot and launch attacks. One of these men was Glenn Miller, formerly the leader of a group called the White Patriot Party. He''d received at least $75,000 in order money from Bob Matthews. As the FBI busted more and more of these guys, they found more and more evidence of the Order''s influence and money. And gradually, they pieced together the story of what had really happened and came to realize that Matthews'' group had sought nothing less than the complete overthrow of the federal government.')
,('36', '9', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.



Prior Context:
e and more evidence of the Order''s influence and money. And gradually, they pieced together the story of what had really happened, and came to realize that Matthews'' group had sought nothing less than the complete overthrow of the federal government.

Original:
In mid-1986, Louis Beam, Richard Butler, Robert Miles, and several other ideological leaders of the fascist movement were finally indicted for their role in the Order. So that''s cool. Wow. Yeah. And we''re gonna hear about what happened next after ads. I''m just incapable of doing a good ad transition. That was great. Thank you, but it''s a lie. You know, it''s not a lie. Wait a minute. I''m not gonna throw it yet. I''m just, I''m building tension. Every time you bring it up. This is how you, the screenwriting 101, Katie. It''s Chekhov''s case of Perrier. I just, my heart stops. But I''m cool and laid back, so whatever you''re gonna do. You know, the reality of the situation is, as soon as I started really getting a sense for the heft of this case, I started regretting the fact that I''ve talked this up so much. But now it has to happen. What about taking one out? No, that actually might make it more dangerous, because then it''ll fall out the back like a scatter bomb. If you open it, it''s more likely that it''ll burst. What if we taped pillows all around it? I don''t think we can do that. I think I have to throw it. You could subvert the narrative and not throw it. But the best thing to do with narratives is not to subvert them. Sure. There is a reason we tell stories the way we do. You could redefine what throwing is, make it like a gentle toss, an underhand toss. I''m not going to go 110% because I don''t feel like that''s necessary given the extremity of what this case of Perrier represents. But I am going to throw it. I mean, those are the cans, correct? Yeah. Okay, that''s something. Yeah, it''s several pounds. 10 slim cans, as the package states. How we doing, Sophie? Ads. It''s not even 12. Products! We''re back! Okay. We hadn''t come back yet. I started talking about Perrier. So yeah, Robert Miles, Richard Butler, Louie Beam, and several other fascist ideologues had gotten indicted for their role in the order. Getting all of these guys together was quite a task. And at one point, Louie Beam''s wife shot a federal agent who came for them. But eventually, they all got held up. Yeah. They all wound up under trial. So, the Justice Department charged these men with a number of crimes, including seditious conspiracy to, quote, overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the government of the United States and form a new Aryan nation. Oddly enough, William Pierce was not indicted.

', 'In mid-1986, Louis Beam, Richard Butler, Robert Miles, and several other ideological leaders of the fascist movement were finally indicted for their role in the Order. So that''s cool. Wow. Yeah. And we''re gonna hear about what happened next after ads. I''m just incapable of doing a good ad transition. That was great. Thank you, but it''s a lie. You know, it''s not a lie. Wait a minute. I''m not gonna throw it yet. I''m just, I''m building tension. Every time you bring it up. This is how you, the screenwriting 101, Katie. It''s Chekhov''s case of Perrier. I just, my heart stops. But I''m cool and laid back, so whatever you''re gonna do. You know, the reality of the situation is, as soon as I started really getting a sense for the heft of this case, I started regretting the fact that I''ve talked this up so much. But now it has to happen. What about taking one out? No, that actually might make it more dangerous, because then it''ll fall out the back like a scatter bomb. If you open it, it''s more likely that it''ll burst. What if we taped pillows all around it? I don''t think we can do that. I think I have to throw it. You could subvert the narrative and not throw it. But the best thing to do with narratives is not to subvert them. Sure. There is a reason we tell stories the way we do. You could redefine what throwing is, make it like a gentle toss, an underhand toss. I''m not going to go 110% because I don''t feel like that''s necessary given the extremity of what this case of Perrier represents. But I am going to throw it. I mean, those are the cans, correct? Yeah. Okay, that''s something. Yeah, it''s several pounds. 10 slim cans, as the package states. How we doing, Sophie? Ads. It''s not even 12. Products! We''re back! Okay. We hadn''t come back yet. I started talking about Perrier. So yeah, Robert Miles, Richard Butler, Louie Beam, and several other fascist ideologues had gotten indicted for their role in the order. Getting all of these guys together was quite a task. And at one point, Louie Beam''s wife shot a federal agent who came for them. But eventually, they all got held up. Yeah. They all wound up under trial. So, the Justice Department charged these men with a number of crimes, including seditious conspiracy to, quote, overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the government of the United States and form a new Aryan nation. Oddly enough, William Pierce was not indicted.')
,('36', '10', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.



Prior Context:
Department charged these men with a number of crimes, including seditious conspiracy to, quote, overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the government of the United States and form a new Aryan nation. Oddly enough, William Pierce was not indicted.

Original:
Seditious conspiracy was a crime numerous communists and Puerto Rican nationalists had already been successfully convicted of committing, but no Nazis or white supremacists had ever been convicted of the crime. Despite the order''s shocking violence and well-documented goals, this fact did not change. The trial convened in February of 1988, and the fascist defense attorneys managed to exclude any black people from the jury. The trial was almost instantly a shitshow, and served more to allow Louis Beahm to preach his views to the nation than to guarantee justice. In his opening statement, he told the jury, The only reason I''m here is because I said what I think. If the Constitution is still alive, I''m innocent. Beam admitted that he had set up computer bulletin boards for different fascist groups around the country But denied that these boards were used for any illicit communication He told the jury he''d been changing his daughter''s diaper when the purported meeting that created the order had occurred So he dubbed the government''s case the baby diaper conspiracy the whole meeting Yeah, that''s what he did. That''s an outrageous diaper. Like, take her to the doctor, man. It doesn''t hold up. You''re doing more to pick this story apart than anyone in the court of law did. Beam ended one speech in his defense with an almost word-for-word recitation of something he''d written in essays of a Klansman about his anger at protesters he''d supposedly encountered after returning home from Vietnam. Quote from Beam. As I sat there watching the flag disintegrate, rage and bitterness began to engulf me. The flames consuming the flag changed to flames enveloping an armored personnel carrier in the hobo woods north of Saigon. The cheers of the demonstrators became the screams of a 19-year-old soldier over his radio as he burned to death, trapped inside what was fast becoming his coffin. The clapping of hands as the flag fell to the ground became the deafening roar of my M60 machine gun as I literally melted the barrel in an attempt to pin down the enemy long enough for the dying soldier''s friends to reach him. Finally at last came the laughter of those demonstrators as they spit on the ashes at their feet Blending in my mind with the sobs of grown men as I remembered the armored personnel carrier disappearing in a ball of orange flame Okay The the prosecution just lets him say this shit. Yeah. Yeah.

', 'Seditious conspiracy was a crime numerous communists and Puerto Rican nationalists had already been successfully convicted of committing, but no Nazis or white supremacists had ever been convicted of the crime. Despite the order''s shocking violence and well-documented goals, this fact did not change.

The trial convened in February of 1988, and the fascist defense attorneys managed to exclude any black people from the jury. The trial was almost instantly a shitshow and served more to allow Louis Beahm to preach his views to the nation than to guarantee justice. In his opening statement, he told the jury, "The only reason I''m here is because I said what I think. If the Constitution is still alive, I''m innocent." 

Beam admitted that he had set up computer bulletin boards for different fascist groups around the country but denied that these boards were used for any illicit communication. He told the jury he''d been changing his daughter''s diaper when the purported meeting that created the order had occurred, so he dubbed the government''s case the "baby diaper conspiracy." Yeah, that''s what he did. That''s an outrageous diaper. Like, take her to the doctor, man. It doesn''t hold up. You''re doing more to pick this story apart than anyone in the court of law did.

Beam ended one speech in his defense with an almost word-for-word recitation of something he''d written in essays of a Klansman about his anger at protesters he''d supposedly encountered after returning home from Vietnam. Quote from Beam: "As I sat there watching the flag disintegrate, rage and bitterness began to engulf me. The flames consuming the flag changed to flames enveloping an armored personnel carrier in the hobo woods north of Saigon. The cheers of the demonstrators became the screams of a 19-year-old soldier over his radio as he burned to death, trapped inside what was fast becoming his coffin. The clapping of hands as the flag fell to the ground became the deafening roar of my M60 machine gun as I literally melted the barrel in an attempt to pin down the enemy long enough for the dying soldier''s friends to reach him. Finally, at last, came the laughter of those demonstrators as they spit on the ashes at their feet, blending in my mind with the sobs of grown men as I remembered the armored personnel carrier disappearing in a ball of orange flame."

Okay, the prosecution just lets him say this shit. Yeah, yeah.')
,('36', '11', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.



Prior Context:
emonstrators as they spit on the ashes at their feet Blending in my mind with the sobs of grown men as I remembered the armored personnel carrier disappearing in a ball of orange flame Okay The the prosecution just lets him say this shit. Yeah. Yeah.

Original:
Yeah, the judge just lets him say this shit Yeah upsetting after seven weeks of trial Louie beam and his fellow defendants were all found not guilty of seditious conspiracy They were released presumably free to return to their lives in the movement of doing nothing though like doing nothing back their lives harmless lives of being harmless The Justice Department had taken its shot at the intellectual center of the white supremacist movement. They had failed. And ultimately, their failure came not from law enforcement''s unwillingness to prosecute Nazis, but from ordinary white Americans and the sympathy they held for men like Beam who billed themselves as warriors against communism and patriots. Beam''s racism and his desire to overthrow the government simply weren''t seen as that bad by a jury of his peers. Sure. The leaders of the white supremacist movement had gotten off more or less scot-free, but the court battle and the months many of them had spent on the lam before being arrested had aged them all. Richard Butler''s influence would gradually fade after he returned home to Idaho. Louis Beahm continued to be an influential mind within the movement, but he would be more careful and much quieter from now on. The heat brought on by the crackdown forced Beam to retire his beloved inter-clan newsletter and survival alert. The last issue contained an essay by an unknown author, probably Beam. In it, he wrote, the second American revolution will be a revolution of individuals, a revolution without exact precedent in recorded history, because individuals can accomplish complex acts of resistance without peril of betrayal or even detection by the most advanced snooping devices. Missions formerly assigned to groups may be undertaken by individuals equipped to fight alone. It would not be long before a young man named him at the McVeigh would prove these words prophetic Individualistic. Yeah It''s collective but they''re alone. They''re lone wolves. Mm-hmm But they are lone just individual crazy people like the guy who shot up the Gilroy garlic festival, right not connected to a larger moment was the Manifesto or the book that it was by a guy named Ragnar Redbeard And it''s one of a number of books that appears regularly in full. He was like writing in the 1890s about like white nationalism and Kind of eco fascism like kind of a really early eco fascist Yeah And it''s one of a number of books that circulates a lot on 8chan, actually.

', 'Yeah, the judge just lets him say this shit. Yeah, upsetting after seven weeks of trial, Louie Beam and his fellow defendants were all found not guilty of seditious conspiracy. They were released, presumably free to return to their lives in the movement, of doing nothing, though, like doing nothing back to their lives, harmless lives of being harmless. The Justice Department had taken its shot at the intellectual center of the white supremacist movement. They had failed. And ultimately, their failure came not from law enforcement''s unwillingness to prosecute Nazis, but from ordinary white Americans and the sympathy they held for men like Beam who billed themselves as warriors against communism and patriots. Beam''s racism and his desire to overthrow the government simply weren''t seen as that bad by a jury of his peers. Sure, the leaders of the white supremacist movement had gotten off more or less scot-free, but the court battle and the months many of them had spent on the lam before being arrested had aged them all. Richard Butler''s influence would gradually fade after he returned home to Idaho. Louis Beam continued to be an influential mind within the movement, but he would be more careful and much quieter from now on. The heat brought on by the crackdown forced Beam to retire his beloved inter-clan newsletter and survival alert. The last issue contained an essay by an unknown author, probably Beam. In it, he wrote, "The second American revolution will be a revolution of individuals, a revolution without exact precedent in recorded history, because individuals can accomplish complex acts of resistance without peril of betrayal or even detection by the most advanced snooping devices. Missions formerly assigned to groups may be undertaken by individuals equipped to fight alone." It would not be long before a young man named McVeigh would prove these words prophetic. Individualistic. Yeah, it''s collective, but they''re alone. They''re lone wolves. Mm-hmm. But they are lone, just individual crazy people like the guy who shot up the Gilroy garlic festival, right? Not connected to a larger movement. Was the Manifesto or the book that it was by a guy named Ragnar Redbeard. And it''s one of a number of books that appears regularly in full. He was writing in the 1890s about white nationalism and kind of eco-fascism, like kind of a really early eco-fascist. Yeah. And it''s one of a number of books that circulates a lot on 8chan, actually.')
,('36', '12', '2023-02-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.



Prior Context:
er of books that appears regularly in full. He was like writing in the 1890s about like white nationalism and Kind of eco fascism like kind of a really early eco fascist Yeah And it''s one of a number of books that circulates a lot on 8chan, actually.

Original:
They send around PDFs for this stuff, like it''s stuff that people wouldn''t have been able to get before the internet, which is why Louis Beahm was 100% right to start doing this. We will talk more about that later. I think I''m going to wait until next episode to really launch this Perrier, but that''s what we call foreshadowing. or stating your intentions, I guess. Yeah, kind of like the Nazis did. And like the Nazis, I expect to not get in trouble no matter what happens. I would say that that''s actually foreshadowing that you won''t throw the Perrier, like you''re talking yourself up about it, you''re bringing it up, you''re reinforcing it in a really obvious way. And so that might be foreshadowing to us that you''re not gonna, you''re gonna change your mind. Oh, I''ve gotta throw them. Until I said this and ruined it. Anywho. But then he said that. We''ve talked about it too much. Well, you guys wanna plug your pluggables? Yeah, you know what, we do. We have a show called Some More News, that''s the YouTube show, and a podcast called Even More News. Cody? I agree. And a Patreon, and a Twitter.com, and a Teepublic. And a Teepublic, and we''re on Twitter. Yeah. You can buy T-shirts from Teepublic. You can find us on the internet somewhere. Yeah, you can. I''m gonna throw these cans in the next episode. Oh no. I scooted all the way away. I know, I love making you flinch. Just listen to the sound. That''s foreshadowing. Can I have one? That''s ominous. No. Under no circumstances. All right. Episode over.

', 'They send around PDFs for this stuff, like it''s stuff that people wouldn''t have been able to get before the internet, which is why Louis Beahm was 100% right to start doing this. We will talk more about that later. I think I''m going to wait until next episode to really launch this Perrier, but that''s what we call foreshadowing, or stating your intentions, I guess. Yeah, kind of like the Nazis did. And like the Nazis, I expect to not get in trouble no matter what happens. I would say that that''s actually foreshadowing that you won''t throw the Perrier, like you''re talking yourself up about it, you''re bringing it up, you''re reinforcing it in a really obvious way. And so that might be foreshadowing to us that you''re not gonna, you''re gonna change your mind. Oh, I''ve gotta throw them. Until I said this and ruined it. Anywho. But then he said that. We''ve talked about it too much. Well, you guys wanna plug your pluggables? Yeah, you know what, we do. We have a show called Some More News, that''s the YouTube show, and a podcast called Even More News. Cody? I agree. And a Patreon, and a Twitter.com, and a Teepublic. And a Teepublic, and we''re on Twitter. Yeah. You can buy T-shirts from Teepublic. You can find us on the internet somewhere. Yeah, you can. I''m gonna throw these cans in the next episode. Oh no. I scooted all the way away. I know, I love making you flinch. Just listen to the sound. That''s foreshadowing. Can I have one? That''s ominous. No. Under no circumstances. All right. Episode over.')
,('50', '1', '2023-03-27', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
A fifth-rate air force. That is how one senior American airman described his service back in January 1939, and he wasn''t wrong. On the eve of the greatest conflict in human history, the Americans had little more than a handful of mainly obsolete planes and fewer officers and men than any other great power. How on earth could they go toe-to-toe with the Luftwaffe? What help could they possibly provide to the RAF? Of course, things have changed dramatically, and now, in 1944, the United States Army Air Forces are the mightiest military force in the history of warfare. But how did they get here? Let''s find out. I''m Indy Neidell, this is a World War Two in real time special on the United States Army Air Forces. The general who uttered those words is Frank Maxwell Andrews, who at the time of his death in May 1943 is Commander of all US forces in the European Theater of Operations. During the 1930s and into the 40s, he pushed for the expansion and autonomy of the Air Force and the purchase of greater numbers of heavy bombers, like the B-17. When he made his comment about a 5th rate force, he really wasn''t exaggerating. When the war in Europe began in September 1939, the United States Army Air Corps- that''s what the Air Force was called until an organizational shakeup in 1941- had just 2,500 aircraft. But aside from transports, trainers, and communications planes, just 1,500 of these were combat aircraft. Of those 1,500, just 800 were considered suitable for first-line service, a figure which paled in comparison to the 1,750 of the RAF and the 3,750 of the Luftwaffe. But unlike American Air Power in the 1930s, CuriosityStream is a service that undoubtedly outshines its competitors. It is thanks to CuriosityStream that we have been able to produce this special episode on top of our regular content. They are the best streaming service for documentaries and other educational content spanning history, science, technology, nature, travel, and much more. Something you should check out on CuriosityStream is Rome, the world''s first superpower. Now, the USA may be a modern day superpower, but the Romans were the originals.

', 'A fifth-rate air force. That is how one senior American airman described his service back in January 1939, and he wasn''t wrong. On the eve of the greatest conflict in human history, the Americans had little more than a handful of mainly obsolete planes and fewer officers and men than any other great power. How on earth could they go toe-to-toe with the Luftwaffe? What help could they possibly provide to the RAF? 

Of course, things have changed dramatically, and now, in 1944, the United States Army Air Forces are the mightiest military force in the history of warfare. But how did they get here? Let''s find out. I''m Indy Neidell, this is a World War Two in real time special on the United States Army Air Forces. The general who uttered those words is Frank Maxwell Andrews, who at the time of his death in May 1943 is Commander of all US forces in the European Theater of Operations. During the 1930s and into the 40s, he pushed for the expansion and autonomy of the Air Force and the purchase of greater numbers of heavy bombers, like the B-17. When he made his comment about a fifth-rate force, he really wasn''t exaggerating. 

When the war in Europe began in September 1939, the United States Army Air Corps - that''s what the Air Force was called until an organizational shakeup in 1941 - had just 2,500 aircraft. But aside from transports, trainers, and communications planes, just 1,500 of these were combat aircraft. Of those 1,500, just 800 were considered suitable for first-line service, a figure which paled in comparison to the 1,750 of the RAF and the 3,750 of the Luftwaffe. 

But unlike American Air Power in the 1930s, CuriosityStream is a service that undoubtedly outshines its competitors. It is thanks to CuriosityStream that we have been able to produce this special episode on top of our regular content. They are the best streaming service for documentaries and other educational content spanning history, science, technology, nature, travel, and much more. Something you should check out on CuriosityStream is Rome, the world''s first superpower. Now, the USA may be a modern day superpower, but the Romans were the originals.')
,('50', '2', '2023-03-27', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
aming service for documentaries and other educational content spanning history, science, technology, nature, travel, and much more. Something you should check out on CuriosityStream is Rome, the world''s first superpower. Now, the USA may be a modern day superpower, but the Romans were the originals.
Original:
Their influence on our politics, art, literature, and military thinking continues to this day. I mean, the Americans, the Brits, the Germans, the Italians, and so on have all adopted the Roman aesthetic to some degree. Actually, Sparty and I could talk about Romans all day, and I''m saying that because we actually did, over breakfast this morning, have a chat about Odoacer and Theodoric and the end of the Roman Empire in the late 400s. We seriously did. But we''ve got a video to get on with. Okay, so go and check out CuriosityStream. It''s got a better collection of content than any other service, they add new shows every week, and they are really one of the best streaming deals around. Okay, it wasn''t just the number of planes that was the problem for the Americans. By the late 30s, most of those 800 frontline aircraft were already approaching obsolescence. America''s main fighter, the P-36 Hawk, was slower, less well armed, and had a lower ceiling than the British Spitfire or the German Bf 109. Likewise, the German medium bombers like the Ju 88, Do 17, and Heinkel 111 were far superior to the American A-17. In fact, the only combat aircraft in American service in September 1939 that will make it to the war''s end- spoiler- is the B-17 Flying Fortress, of which the US has only 23 at the time. It wasn''t just a question of planes either. In terms of manpower, the Air Corps was tiny. It counted just 26,500 officers, enlisted men, and cadets, whereas the German Luftwaffe counted at least 400,000. The only silver lining was that the American pilots and mechanics were probably as well trained as their British and German counterparts. So, how have the Americans turned this around? Well, in some ways the story of the United States Army Air Forces is the opposite of that of the Luftwaffe. As I covered in a recent special, it''s only in the past year that the Luftwaffe has realized that it drastically needs to step up production. Although 1944 will be the most productive year for German aircraft manufacturing, it''s probably too late for the Reich to turn the tide in the air war.

', 'Their influence on our politics, art, literature, and military thinking continues to this day. I mean, the Americans, the Brits, the Germans, the Italians, and so on have all adopted the Roman aesthetic to some degree. Actually, Sparty and I could talk about Romans all day, and I''m saying that because we actually did over breakfast this morning. We had a chat about Odoacer and Theodoric and the end of the Roman Empire in the late 400s. We seriously did. But we''ve got a video to get on with.

Okay, so go and check out CuriosityStream. It''s got a better collection of content than any other service, they add new shows every week, and they are really one of the best streaming deals around.

Okay, it wasn''t just the number of planes that was the problem for the Americans. By the late 30s, most of those 800 frontline aircraft were already approaching obsolescence. America''s main fighter, the P-36 Hawk, was slower, less well-armed, and had a lower ceiling than the British Spitfire or the German Bf 109. Likewise, the German medium bombers like the Ju 88, Do 17, and Heinkel 111 were far superior to the American A-17. In fact, the only combat aircraft in American service in September 1939 that will make it to the war''s end - spoiler - is the B-17 Flying Fortress, of which the US has only 23 at the time.

It wasn''t just a question of planes either. In terms of manpower, the Air Corps was tiny. It counted just 26,500 officers, enlisted men, and cadets, whereas the German Luftwaffe counted at least 400,000. The only silver lining was that the American pilots and mechanics were probably as well-trained as their British and German counterparts.

So, how have the Americans turned this around? Well, in some ways, the story of the United States Army Air Forces is the opposite of that of the Luftwaffe. As I covered in a recent special, it''s only in the past year that the Luftwaffe has realized that it drastically needs to step up production. Although 1944 will be the most productive year for German aircraft manufacturing, it''s probably too late for the Reich to turn the tide in the air war.')
,('50', '3', '2023-03-27', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
waffe. As I covered in a recent special, it''s only in the past year that the Luftwaffe has realized that it drastically needs to step up production. Although 1944 will be the most productive year for German aircraft manufacturing, it''s probably too late for the Reich to turn the tide in the air war.
Original:
By contrast, the United States was already fixing this issue when General Andrews made his comments. That same month, January 1939, US President Franklin Roosevelt urged Congress to approve a minimum 3,000 plane increase for the Air Corps in light of the deteriorating situation in Europe. in April, Congress approved the request and allocated money to raise aircraft strength to 5,500, to raise manpower to 50,000, and to build and improve facilities and bases. Beyond pure numbers, though, the Air Corps also needed to close the capability gap. between its aircraft and those of its allies and potential enemies. Some of the planes we''ve come to know during the war were already in the works, with Lockheed starting design work on the P-38 Lightning back in 1937, but there was still the broader issue that the US government spent next to nothing on research and development for the Air Corps. Average spending between 1933 and 1939 was just $4 million per year. To put that into perspective, the chemicals giant DuPont was spending twice as much on R&D as the US Army Air Corps was. Air Corps Chief Henry Hap Arnold decided to turn this around. He established a series of boards, staffed by senior officers and outside consultants, including Charles Lindbergh. Most important were the Kilner Board in June 1939 and the Amons Board in June 1940. The recommendations from these boards set the tone for the next four to five years of research. The development of more powerful aircraft engines, longer range bombers capable of carrying a heavier bomb load, and higher performance fighters. It was in these discussions that the B-29 Superfortress has its origins. Meanwhile, FDR''s calls for air force expansion became increasingly urgent as the Germans advanced across Europe. In May 1940, as France looked set to fall, he called for a force of 50,000 planes. This is an enormous step up and approximately equal to the total number of military and civil aircraft built in the United States up to that point since the Wright Brothers'' first flight in 1903. However, in the summer of 1941, Congress refused to approve funding for this goal.

', 'By contrast, the United States was already addressing this issue when General Andrews made his comments. In January 1939, US President Franklin Roosevelt urged Congress to approve a minimum 3,000 plane increase for the Air Corps in light of the deteriorating situation in Europe. In April, Congress approved the request and allocated money to raise aircraft strength to 5,500, increase manpower to 50,000, and build and improve facilities and bases. Beyond pure numbers, though, the Air Corps also needed to close the capability gap between its aircraft and those of its allies and potential enemies. Some of the planes we''ve come to know during the war were already in the works, with Lockheed starting design work on the P-38 Lightning back in 1937. However, there was still the broader issue that the US government spent next to nothing on research and development for the Air Corps. Average spending between 1933 and 1939 was just $4 million per year. To put that into perspective, the chemicals giant DuPont was spending twice as much on R&D as the US Army Air Corps was. Air Corps Chief Henry Hap Arnold decided to turn this around. He established a series of boards, staffed by senior officers and outside consultants, including Charles Lindbergh. Most important were the Kilner Board in June 1939 and the Amons Board in June 1940. The recommendations from these boards set the tone for the next four to five years of research, including the development of more powerful aircraft engines, longer-range bombers capable of carrying a heavier bomb load, and higher-performance fighters. It was in these discussions that the B-29 Superfortress had its origins. Meanwhile, FDR''s calls for air force expansion became increasingly urgent as the Germans advanced across Europe. In May 1940, as France looked set to fall, he called for a force of 50,000 planes. This was an enormous step up and approximately equal to the total number of military and civil aircraft built in the United States up to that point since the Wright Brothers'' first flight in 1903. However, in the summer of 1941, Congress refused to approve funding for this goal.')
,('50', '4', '2023-03-27', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
rce of 50,000 planes. This is an enormous step up and approximately equal to the total number of military and civil aircraft built in the United States up to that point since the Wright Brothers'' first flight in 1903. However, in the summer of 1941, Congress refused to approve funding for this goal.
Original:
But everything changes after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that December. From here, the story is of an American demonstration of financial and industrial muscle greater than anything that has come before. I covered that whole general topic in a video a couple years ago, so you should check that out for more on the bigger picture. From January 1942, the War Production Board directs the conversion of civilian industry into a war economy, defense spending rockets from 1.2% of GDP in 1938 to over 40% in 1944. when it comes to aircraft. The key to success is the transformation of the massive labor force and the productive capacity of the automobile industry, which in 1941 alone produces 3 million cars. By June 1942, 66% of the industry''s machine tooling has been redeployed for aircraft building. and just 139 new civilian cars will be built by the war''s end. Instead of cars, massive facilities like Ford''s Willow Run aircraft plant in Michigan churn out new four-engine heavy bombers like the B-24 Liberator incredibly quickly and cheaply, so quickly that a new Liberator is completed at Willow Run every hour. It takes longer than planned to get Willow Run up to speed, though. Ford struggles to attract workers to rural Michigan, and the constant modifications made to the design of the B-24 use up more time, labor, and money than expected. but, however imperfect the system, the United States leapfrogs all competitors to become the leading aircraft producer. In 1939, American production is lower than that of Britain and Germany, with 5,900 aircraft built versus 7,900 and 8,300 respectively. But after just a year, the US overtakes Germany, and after two years it overtakes Britain. America has since pulled out a massive lead. This year in total, the British build 26,500 planes, the Germans 39,800. The American figure is an enormous 96,300. thanks to such a massive production effort, the USAAF has far surpassed FDR''s targets and will have a strength of 72,700 aircraft by the end of the year. The Air Force also has run a vast recruitment and training operation, and since 1939 has expanded almost 100-fold to over 2.4 million people as of December 31, 1943.

', 'But everything changes after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that December. From here, the story is of an American demonstration of financial and industrial muscle greater than anything that has come before. I covered that whole general topic in a video a couple years ago, so you should check that out for more on the bigger picture. From January 1942, the War Production Board directs the conversion of civilian industry into a war economy. Defense spending rockets from 1.2% of GDP in 1938 to over 40% in 1944 when it comes to aircraft.

The key to success is the transformation of the massive labor force and the productive capacity of the automobile industry, which in 1941 alone produces 3 million cars. By June 1942, 66% of the industry''s machine tooling has been redeployed for aircraft building. And just 139 new civilian cars will be built by the war''s end. Instead of cars, massive facilities like Ford''s Willow Run aircraft plant in Michigan churn out new four-engine heavy bombers like the B-24 Liberator incredibly quickly and cheaply. So quickly that a new Liberator is completed at Willow Run every hour.

It takes longer than planned to get Willow Run up to speed, though. Ford struggles to attract workers to rural Michigan, and the constant modifications made to the design of the B-24 use up more time, labor, and money than expected. However, however imperfect the system, the United States leapfrogs all competitors to become the leading aircraft producer. In 1939, American production is lower than that of Britain and Germany, with 5,900 aircraft built versus 7,900 and 8,300 respectively. But after just a year, the US overtakes Germany, and after two years it overtakes Britain. America has since pulled out a massive lead. This year in total, the British build 26,500 planes, the Germans 39,800. The American figure is an enormous 96,300. Thanks to such a massive production effort, the USAAF has far surpassed FDR''s targets and will have a strength of 72,700 aircraft by the end of the year. The Air Force also has run a vast recruitment and training operation, and since 1939 has expanded almost 100-fold to over 2.4 million people as of December 31, 1943.')
,('50', '5', '2023-03-27', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
ssive production effort, the USAAF has far surpassed FDR''s targets and will have a strength of 72,700 aircraft by the end of the year. The Air Force also has run a vast recruitment and training operation, and since 1939 has expanded almost 100-fold to over 2.4 million people as of December 31, 1943.
Original:
Recruiting and training pilots has not been much of a problem. The Air Force has reduced the minimum age from 20 to 18 and done away with the requirement for at least two years of higher education, and there have been more than enough volunteers for the Aviation Cadet Program. By the end of the war, a total of 193,000 new pilots will have passed through training, along with 43,000 bombardiers, 49,000 navigators, and almost 300,000 gunners. 1.4 million men will have done technical training as mechanical or electrical specialists, the Army Service Corps trains cooks and clerks, and the Ordnance Corps teaches men to handle bombs and explosives. Nearly 40,000 women have joined the Air Force as well, most are in administrative or clerical roles, and 6,500 are trained as nurses. Just over 1,200 women have been trained as mechanics, and 1,000 have qualified as pilots to ferry planes across the country. The Americans also benefit from knowledge and technology-sharing arrangements unlike anything really that''s come before. The collaboration between the Allied powers stands in stark contrast with the Axis, whose dysfunctional relationship has severely strained their war effort. The Allied relationship finds physical manifestation in the P-51 Mustang. The Mustang doesn''t start life as the high-altitude, high-performance, long-range fighter which is currently escorting American bombers to Berlin. The American-made Allison engine, which powers early Mustang models, gives excellent performance at low and medium altitudes but struggles above 15,000 feet. Only when British engineers experiment with installing the Rolls Royce Merlin engine in the summer of 1942 is the Mustang''s true potential unlocked. At altitudes of 30,000 feet, Merlin-powered Mustangs reach speeds above 430 mph, more than 100 mph faster than Allison-powered examples. And by now, ever more of them arrive in the United Kingdom to serve the 8th Air Force over Germany. Of course, not everything has been rosy for the USAAF. Assembling vast fleets of fighters and bombers is different from actually employing them successfully.

', 'Recruiting and training pilots has not been much of a problem. The Air Force has reduced the minimum age from 20 to 18 and done away with the requirement for at least two years of higher education. There have been more than enough volunteers for the Aviation Cadet Program. By the end of the war, a total of 193,000 new pilots will have passed through training, along with 43,000 bombardiers, 49,000 navigators, and almost 300,000 gunners. Additionally, 1.4 million men will have received technical training as mechanical or electrical specialists. The Army Service Corps trains cooks and clerks, and the Ordnance Corps teaches men to handle bombs and explosives. Nearly 40,000 women have joined the Air Force as well. Most are in administrative or clerical roles, and 6,500 are trained as nurses. Just over 1,200 women have been trained as mechanics, and 1,000 have qualified as pilots to ferry planes across the country. The Americans also benefit from knowledge and technology-sharing arrangements unlike anything that has come before. The collaboration between the Allied powers stands in stark contrast with the Axis, whose dysfunctional relationship has severely strained their war effort. The Allied relationship finds physical manifestation in the P-51 Mustang. The Mustang doesn''t start life as the high-altitude, high-performance, long-range fighter that is currently escorting American bombers to Berlin. The American-made Allison engine, which powers early Mustang models, gives excellent performance at low and medium altitudes but struggles above 15,000 feet. Only when British engineers experiment with installing the Rolls Royce Merlin engine in the summer of 1942 is the Mustang''s true potential unlocked. At altitudes of 30,000 feet, Merlin-powered Mustangs reach speeds above 430 mph, more than 100 mph faster than Allison-powered examples. And by now, more of them arrive in the United Kingdom to serve the 8th Air Force over Germany. Of course, not everything has been rosy for the USAAF. Assembling vast fleets of fighters and bombers is different from actually employing them successfully.')
,('50', '6', '2023-03-27', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
mph faster than Allison-powered examples. And by now, ever more of them arrive in the United Kingdom to serve the 8th Air Force over Germany. Of course, not everything has been rosy for the USAAF. Assembling vast fleets of fighters and bombers is different from actually employing them successfully.
Original:
In 1943, the 8th Air Force''s strategy of precision daylight bombing over Germany leads to extremely heavy losses. It rests on the flawed assumption by General Arnold and former 8th Air Force Commander Ira Eaker that the heavy defensive armament of the B-17s and B-24s is sufficient for them to fly unescorted over Germany during the day. These missions fail to deal a killing blow to German industry, and the losses of American bombers and crews soar. Particularly disastrous are the Schweinfurt raids of August and October, in which German heavy fighters armed with air-to-air rockets tear apart the American B-17s. In the August raid, the 8th loses 60 B-17s, almost 10% of its strength. In October, it loses another 77 planes, again about 10% of its strength. From May to December 1943, the 8th Air Force writes off somewhere between 18 and 22% of its airplanes and between 17% and 40% of its crews each month. After the 2nd Schweinfurt Raid, amid intense political pressure and a morale crisis, Eker suspends deep penetration missions into Germany. He limits his force to targets in France, the European coastline, and the Ruhr Valley, which are within range of the escort fighters. but now the situation has changed. Under its new commander, Jim Doolittle, the 8th has grown enormously and is better able to absorb losses. From a fleet of around 760 operational bombers back in October, the 8th now counts over 1,500. Over the same period, the number of operationally ready fighters has grown from fewer than 400 to almost 900. After Schweinfurt, the US and UK step up drop tank production as a matter of urgency, and these fighters, which are a mix of P-51s, P-38s, and P-47s, now have greater range. Everything seems like it''s coming together on February 20th, when the 8th unleashes Big Week. Raids of up to 1,000 bombers strike German fighter production targets around towns and cities, including Braunschweig, Leipzig, Rostock, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and Schweinfurt. but Big Week fails in its aim. The Allies have completely underestimated the capacity of the German fighter industry. On top of this, the Germans have done well dispersing their facilities to minimize the impact of the raids.

', 'In 1943, the 8th Air Force''s strategy of precision daylight bombing over Germany leads to extremely heavy losses. It rests on the flawed assumption by General Arnold and former 8th Air Force Commander Ira Eaker that the heavy defensive armament of the B-17s and B-24s is sufficient for them to fly unescorted over Germany during the day. These missions fail to deal a killing blow to German industry, and the losses of American bombers and crews soar. Particularly disastrous are the Schweinfurt raids of August and October, in which German heavy fighters armed with air-to-air rockets tear apart the American B-17s. In the August raid, the 8th loses 60 B-17s, almost 10% of its strength. In October, it loses another 77 planes, again about 10% of its strength. From May to December 1943, the 8th Air Force writes off somewhere between 18 and 22% of its airplanes and between 17% and 40% of its crews each month. After the 2nd Schweinfurt Raid, amid intense political pressure and a morale crisis, Eaker suspends deep penetration missions into Germany. He limits his force to targets in France, the European coastline, and the Ruhr Valley, which are within range of the escort fighters. But now the situation has changed. Under its new commander, Jim Doolittle, the 8th has grown enormously and is better able to absorb losses. From a fleet of around 760 operational bombers back in October, the 8th now counts over 1,500. Over the same period, the number of operationally ready fighters has grown from fewer than 400 to almost 900. After Schweinfurt, the US and UK step up drop tank production as a matter of urgency, and these fighters, which are a mix of P-51s, P-38s, and P-47s, now have greater range. Everything seems like it''s coming together on February 20th when the 8th unleashes Big Week. Raids of up to 1,000 bombers strike German fighter production targets around towns and cities, including Braunschweig, Leipzig, Rostock, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and Schweinfurt. But Big Week fails in its aim. The Allies have completely underestimated the capacity of the German fighter industry. On top of this, the Germans have done well in dispersing their facilities to minimize the impact of the raids.')
,('50', '7', '2023-03-27', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
ding Braunschweig, Leipzig, Rostock, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and Schweinfurt. but Big Week fails in its aim. The Allies have completely underestimated the capacity of the German fighter industry. On top of this, the Germans have done well dispersing their facilities to minimize the impact of the raids.
Original:
After Big Week, the Germans accelerate this dispersal and prioritize the construction of massive underground factories. a better Allied strategy might have been to target the production of airplane engines than the fighters themselves. Maybe. Once again, US casualties are high. German fighters succeed in destroying 299 American planes in February alone. However, with the 8th growing ever larger and with a massive production and manpower advantage, the Americans can absorb this. In fact, at the end of Big Week, the US AAF has more P-51 Mustangs than it began the week with. On top of that, Big Week and other subsequent raids do accelerate the destruction of the German fighter force. Even during American disasters like Schweinfurt, Luftwaffe fighter losses are extremely high. Now these losses begin to become unmanageable. Not only does Doolittle have more fighters and pilots to put to work, but he also implements effective new tactics on the outward leg of the bombing missions he frees the fighters to fly far ahead of the bomber formations. This allows them to hunt down the German heavy fighters before they can approach the bombers. These big beasts are thus easy prey because they are weighed down by their massive air-to-air rockets. That fate befalls Heavy Fighter Wing 26 Horst Wessel, which loses 11 of the 16 Bf 110s that scramble on February 20th. The pain doesn''t end there. after their bombers have dropped their loads, the American fighters drop down to attack German fighters on the ground or while they are slow and vulnerable during takeoff and landing. The American pilots, thanks to their numbers, also have a lot more rest time, being quickly rotated in and out of duty, while the German pilots grow exhausted from flying endless sortie after sortie. In February alone, the Luftwaffe suffers the loss of 33% of its Bf 109 and Fw 190 single engine fighters, and 18% of its fighter pilots. In March, the US continues the rapid tempo of operations, and those German loss figures rise to 56% and 22% respectively. The Germans may produce more fighters in 1944 than any previous year, but they cannot maintain this loss rate.

', 'After Big Week, the Germans accelerate this dispersal and prioritize the construction of massive underground factories. A better Allied strategy might have been to target the production of airplane engines rather than the fighters themselves, maybe. Once again, US casualties are high. German fighters succeed in destroying 299 American planes in February alone. However, with the 8th growing ever larger and with a massive production and manpower advantage, the Americans can absorb this. In fact, at the end of Big Week, the US AAF has more P-51 Mustangs than it began the week with. On top of that, Big Week and other subsequent raids do accelerate the destruction of the German fighter force. Even during American disasters like Schweinfurt, Luftwaffe fighter losses are extremely high. Now these losses begin to become unmanageable. Not only does Doolittle have more fighters and pilots to put to work, but he also implements effective new tactics. On the outward leg of the bombing missions, he frees the fighters to fly far ahead of the bomber formations. This allows them to hunt down the German heavy fighters before they can approach the bombers. These big beasts are thus easy prey because they are weighed down by their massive air-to-air rockets. That fate befalls Heavy Fighter Wing 26 Horst Wessel, which loses 11 of the 16 Bf 110s that scramble on February 20th. The pain doesn''t end there. After their bombers have dropped their loads, the American fighters drop down to attack German fighters on the ground or while they are slow and vulnerable during takeoff and landing. The American pilots, thanks to their numbers, also have a lot more rest time, being quickly rotated in and out of duty, while the German pilots grow exhausted from flying endless sorties. In February alone, the Luftwaffe suffers the loss of 33% of its Bf 109 and Fw 190 single-engine fighters, and 18% of its fighter pilots. In March, the US continues the rapid tempo of operations, and those German loss figures rise to 56% and 22% respectively. The Germans may produce more fighters in 1944 than any previous year, but they cannot maintain this loss rate.')
,('50', '8', '2023-03-27', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Example Correction:
```
Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending
Corrected:
Going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story
Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story
```

Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
9 and Fw 190 single engine fighters, and 18% of its fighter pilots. In March, the US continues the rapid tempo of operations, and those German loss figures rise to 56% and 22% respectively. The Germans may produce more fighters in 1944 than any previous year, but they cannot maintain this loss rate.
Original:
And I''m not even talking about all the losses on the Eastern Front. By June, the Germans will have just 560 operational fighters defending the Reich against the combined USAAF and RAF offensive. As the Luftwaffe begins to disintegrate, the 8th Air Force continues to ascend. American losses will remain high over the next few months, yes, but the force will continue to grow ever larger. By June, the 8th will count 2,500 bombers ready for operations, and the number of American fighters ready for action will have grown from 370 to 1,100 over the same period. A couple months ago, I told you, the Luftwaffe was not a spent force yet, but it was certainly heading that way. Well, we are one step further down that road now. The war in the skies is a war of attrition, and it is becoming clearer which side will win that fight. In 1939, US air power was dwarfed by almost every other major power, but the sleeping giant is well and truly awake, and in the US AAF it wields a weapon. the likes of which the world has never before seen. Thanks again to CuriosityStream for making this special possible. Go to curiositystream.com or scan the QR code for unlimited access to the world''s top documentaries and non-fiction series. The deal gets even better if you use the promo code WORLDWAR2 all one word, which will save you 25%. If you''d like to see that recent special about the Luftwaffe, you can click right here for that. It''s really good. James wrote that special too. Say hi, James! Hello! He''s here. And click subscribe. See you next time.

', 'And I''m not even talking about all the losses on the Eastern Front. By June, the Germans will have just 560 operational fighters defending the Reich against the combined USAAF and RAF offensive. As the Luftwaffe begins to disintegrate, the 8th Air Force continues to ascend. American losses will remain high over the next few months, yes, but the force will continue to grow ever larger.

By June, the 8th will count 2,500 bombers ready for operations, and the number of American fighters ready for action will have grown from 370 to 1,100 over the same period. A couple months ago, I told you the Luftwaffe was not a spent force yet, but it was certainly heading that way. Well, we are one step further down that road now. The war in the skies is a war of attrition, and it is becoming clearer which side will win that fight.

In 1939, US air power was dwarfed by almost every other major power, but the sleeping giant is well and truly awake, and in the US AAF it wields a weapon the likes of which the world has never before seen. Thanks again to CuriosityStream for making this special possible. Go to curiositystream.com or scan the QR code for unlimited access to the world''s top documentaries and non-fiction series. The deal gets even better if you use the promo code WORLDWAR2, all one word, which will save you 25%.

If you''d like to see that recent special about the Luftwaffe, you can click right here for that. It''s really good. James wrote that special too. Say hi, James! Hello! He''s here. And click subscribe. See you next time.')
,('66', '1', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 1 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
In the beggining, there was only chaos and void. then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Corrected:
In the beginning, there was only chaos and void. Then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story

Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story

Prior Context:


Original:
We''ve been looking at Plato''s arguments for the immortality of the soul. And so far, I have to say, I haven''t found them very compelling arguments. In a minute, I''m going to turn to an argument that at least strikes me as more interesting. It''s more difficult to pin down where it goes wrong. But before we do, I want to make the last couple of comments about the argument we were considering at the end of last class. That was the argument from recollection. You recall the basic idea was objects in the ordinary familiar empirical world are not perfectly just, perfectly round, what have you. They''re able to remind us of perfect justice, perfect roundness and the like. And when Plato asked himself, how could that be, the answer he gives is, well, it''s got to be that we were previously acquainted with the forms before our life in this world. And that shows that the soul must be something that existed prior to the creation of the That''s the argument from recollection. And at the very end of class I suggested that, look, even if we were to grant to Plato that in order to think about justice, circularity, what have you, we had to somehow grasp the forms. And even if we were to grant to Plato that nothing in this world is perfectly round or perfectly just, It''s not necessarily correct to say, so the only possible explanation of what''s going on is that these things in the empirical world remind us of our prior acquaintance with the forms. It could be that what goes on is when we bump up against something that''s partially just or partially beautiful or partially imperfectly round. What happens is, those things sort of trigger our minds in such a way that we begin to think about the forms for the very first time. So it might be, in order to think about justice and roundness, we have to grasp the forms. But it could be that we only grasp the forms in this life, for the very first time. exposure to the things that participate in the forms may nudge our minds or our souls in such a way that at that point, given that exposure, we begin to grasp the forms. It''s as though the ordinary earthly objects, we bump into them, or they bump into us, and they get us to look upwards to the heavenly platonic realm. I don''t mean literally upwards. It''s not as though these things, the number three is up there. But if you accept the metaphor, running into things in the get our minds to start thinking about, for the first time, the heavenly realm of the Platonic forms and ideas.

', 'We''ve been looking at Plato''s arguments for the immortality of the soul, and so far, I have to say, I haven''t found them very compelling. In a minute, I''m going to turn to an argument that at least strikes me as more interesting. It''s more difficult to pin down where it goes wrong. But before we do, I want to make a few last comments about the argument we were considering at the end of last class. That was the argument from recollection. You recall the basic idea was that objects in the ordinary familiar empirical world are not perfectly just, perfectly round, and so on. They''re able to remind us of perfect justice, perfect roundness, and the like. And when Plato asked himself, how could that be, the answer he gives is, well, it''s got to be that we were previously acquainted with the forms before our life in this world. And that shows that the soul must be something that existed prior to the creation of this world. That''s the argument from recollection. And at the very end of class, I suggested that, look, even if we were to grant Plato that in order to think about justice, circularity, and so on, we had to somehow grasp the forms, and even if we were to grant Plato that nothing in this world is perfectly round or perfectly just, it''s not necessarily correct to say that the only possible explanation of what''s going on is that these things in the empirical world remind us of our prior acquaintance with the forms. It could be that what goes on is when we bump up against something that''s partially just or partially beautiful or partially imperfectly round, what happens is, those things sort of trigger our minds in such a way that we begin to think about the forms for the very first time. So it might be, in order to think about justice and roundness, we have to grasp the forms. But it could be that we only grasp the forms in this life, for the very first time. Exposure to the things that participate in the forms may nudge our minds or our souls in such a way that at that point, given that exposure, we begin to grasp the forms. It''s as though the ordinary earthly objects, when we bump into them or they bump into us, get us to look upwards to the heavenly Platonic realm. I don''t mean literally upwards. It''s not as though these things, like the number three, are up there. But if you accept the metaphor, running into things in the world can get our minds to start thinking about, for the first time, the heavenly realm of the Platonic forms and ideas.')
,('66', '2', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 2 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
iterally upwards. It''s not as though these things, the number three is up there. But if you accept the metaphor, running into things in the get our minds to start thinking about, for the first time, the heavenly realm of the Platonic forms and ideas.

Original:
That would be just as likely a possibility as the alternative explanation that what''s going on is the ordinary empirical objects are reminding us of our prior acquaintance. Perhaps these ordinary objects act like letters of introduction. getting us to, helping us to, think about the forms for the very first time. Well, if that''s right, then of course we don''t have any good reason to follow Plato when he says it must be the case that the soul existed prior to birth. Now, the objection I''ve just raised is not an objection that Plato raises in the Phaedo, but he does raise a different objection. Remember, our concern isn''t strictly speaking with the question, did the soul exist before our birth? Did the soul exist before our bodies? But rather, is the soul immortal? And so having now given the argument from recollection, Plato envisions two of Socrates'' disciples, Simeon and Simeon, responding, objecting, by saying, look, even if the soul existed before birth, it doesn''t follow that it exists after death. And that''s, after all, what we really are wondering about. We want to know, will we survive our deaths? Is the soul immortal? And you haven''t yet shown that, Socrates, they object. It could be that it existed before, but won''t exist afterwards. But very nicely, it''s quite elegant structure at this point, Socrates puts together the two arguments that we''ve just been rehearsing, the argument from recollection and the argument that came before that, the one that I dubbed the argument from recycling. Remember, the argument from recycling says when you build something, you build it out of parts, and when that thing falls apart, you go back to the parts. All right, so the prior parts get recycled. The soul, we now say, based on the argument from recollection, the soul is one of our prior parts. the soul existed before we were put together, or before we were put together with our bodies. If you then combine the argument from recycling and say, the parts that existed before are going to exist afterwards, it must follow that if the soul existed before, it will exist afterwards as well. So we''ve got the immortality of the soul after all. bracket the fact that, as I just explained, I don''t myself find the argument from recollection persuasive. I don''t think we''ve got any good reason to believe, based on the sort of things that Plato''s drawing our attention to, I don''t think we''ve got any good reason to believe that the soul existed before we were born.

', 'That would be just as likely a possibility as the alternative explanation that what''s going on is the ordinary empirical objects are reminding us of our prior acquaintance. Perhaps these ordinary objects act like letters of introduction, getting us to think about the forms for the very first time. Well, if that''s right, then of course we don''t have any good reason to follow Plato when he says it must be the case that the soul existed prior to birth. 

Now, the objection I''ve just raised is not an objection that Plato raises in the Phaedo, but he does raise a different objection. Remember, our concern isn''t strictly speaking with the question: did the soul exist before our birth? Did the soul exist before our bodies? But rather, is the soul immortal? And so, having now given the argument from recollection, Plato envisions two of Socrates'' disciples, Simeon and Simeon, responding, objecting, by saying, "Look, even if the soul existed before birth, it doesn''t follow that it exists after death. And that''s, after all, what we really are wondering about. We want to know, will we survive our deaths? Is the soul immortal? And you haven''t yet shown that, Socrates," they object. "It could be that it existed before, but won''t exist afterwards."

But very nicely, in a quite elegant structure at this point, Socrates puts together the two arguments that we''ve just been rehearsing: the argument from recollection and the argument that came before that, the one that I dubbed the argument from recycling. Remember, the argument from recycling says when you build something, you build it out of parts, and when that thing falls apart, you go back to the parts. All right, so the prior parts get recycled. The soul, we now say, based on the argument from recollection, is one of our prior parts. The soul existed before we were put together, or before we were put together with our bodies. If you then combine the argument from recycling and say that the parts that existed before are going to exist afterwards, it must follow that if the soul existed before, it will exist afterwards as well. So, we''ve got the immortality of the soul after all. 

Now, bracket the fact that, as I just explained, I don''t myself find the argument from recollection persuasive. I don''t think we''ve got any good reason to believe, based on the sort of things that Plato''s drawing our attention to, that the soul existed before we were born.')
,('66', '3', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 3 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
rgument from recollection persuasive. I don''t think we''ve got any good reason to believe, based on the sort of things that Plato''s drawing our attention to, I don''t think we''ve got any good reason to believe that the soul existed before we were born.

Original:
But even if we grant him that, We shouldn''t be so quick to conclude, on the basis of combining the argument from recollection and the argument from recycling, that the soul will continue to exist after the death of our bodies. After all, take a more familiar humdrum example. Cars are built out of non-cars. Cars get built out of engines and tires and steering wheels. And the engine''s not a car. The steering wheel''s not a car. So you build the car out of its parts. Now, the engine''s a prior existing part. So can we conclude then that from the fact that argument from recycling, parts get reused, get rebuilt, when cars get destroyed, its parts are still around. Can we conclude from the argument from recycling and the fact that the engine is a prior existing part from which the car was built, that the engine will continue to exist forever after the destruction of the car? No, obviously you can''t conclude that at all. Sometimes when cars get destroyed, the engine gets destroyed right along with it. And of course, even if in many cases the engine continues to exist for a while after the destruction of the car, it certainly doesn''t follow that the engine is immortal, that it continues to exist forever. Engines will eventually decompose and turn back into So from the mere fact that the engine was a part that existed before the car existed, and the further fact that when the car breaks down, it decomposes back into parts, it certainly doesn''t follow that all of the parts that existed prior to the existence of the car will be around forever. That would just be false. So even if we were to give Socrates, the thesis that the soul existed before we were put together, before we were born, it still wouldn''t follow that the soul will continue to exist after we''re sort of taken back apart. The soul might eventually decay, just like the engine will What we need to really become convinced of the immortality of the soul is not the mere suggestion, even if we were convinced, is not the mere suggestion that the soul was around before our birth. We need to believe that the soul, unlike an engine, can''t itself be destroyed, can''t itself decompose. can''t fall apart. That''s what we need, if we''re really going to become convinced of the immortality of the soul.

', 'But even if we grant him that, we shouldn''t be so quick to conclude, on the basis of combining the argument from recollection and the argument from recycling, that the soul will continue to exist after the death of our bodies. After all, take a more familiar humdrum example. Cars are built out of non-cars. Cars get built out of engines and tires and steering wheels. And the engine''s not a car. The steering wheel''s not a car. So you build the car out of its parts. Now, the engine''s a prior existing part. So can we conclude then that from the fact that argument from recycling, parts get reused, get rebuilt, when cars get destroyed, its parts are still around? Can we conclude from the argument from recycling and the fact that the engine is a prior existing part from which the car was built, that the engine will continue to exist forever after the destruction of the car? No, obviously you can''t conclude that at all. Sometimes when cars get destroyed, the engine gets destroyed right along with it. And of course, even if in many cases the engine continues to exist for a while after the destruction of the car, it certainly doesn''t follow that the engine is immortal, that it continues to exist forever. Engines will eventually decompose and turn back into parts. So from the mere fact that the engine was a part that existed before the car existed, and the further fact that when the car breaks down, it decomposes back into parts, it certainly doesn''t follow that all of the parts that existed prior to the existence of the car will be around forever. That would just be false. So even if we were to give Socrates the thesis that the soul existed before we were put together, before we were born, it still wouldn''t follow that the soul will continue to exist after we''re sort of taken back apart. The soul might eventually decay, just like the engine will. What we need to really become convinced of the immortality of the soul is not the mere suggestion, even if we were convinced, is not the mere suggestion that the soul was around before our birth. We need to believe that the soul, unlike an engine, can''t itself be destroyed, can''t itself decompose, can''t fall apart. That''s what we need, if we''re really going to become convinced of the immortality of the soul.')
,('66', '4', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 4 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
soul was around before our birth. We need to believe that the soul, unlike an engine, can''t itself be destroyed, can''t itself decompose. can''t fall apart. That''s what we need, if we''re really going to become convinced of the immortality of the soul.

Original:
Now, as I''ve remarked previously, one of the amazing things, not amazing, but one of the really attractive things about Plato''s dialogues is you raise an objection, and it often seems as though Plato himself, whether or not he explicitly states the seems aware of the objection because he''ll go on to say something that is responsive to it. And again, that makes sense if you think of these dialogues as a kind of pedagogical tool to help you get better at philosophizing. So the very next argument that Plato turns to can be viewed, I think, as responding to this unstated objection. Well, I stated it, but Plato doesn''t state it in the dialogue. The worry that even if the soul was one of the parts, even if the soul was already around before we''re born, how do we know it can''t come apart? How do we know the soul can''t be destroyed? Since what we want to know is whether the soul is immortal, how do we know it can''t Plato''s next argument then tries to deal directly with this worry. And it''s a quite interesting argument. I''ll give it another, a new label. I''ll call it The Argument from Simplicity. Socrates turns to a discussion What kinds of things can break and what kinds of things can''t break? What kinds of things can be destroyed and what kinds of things can''t be destroyed? He thinks about examples. He surveys examples and tries to extract a kind of metaphysical principle from this. And then, as we''ll see, he''s going to use this principle to convince us, or to try to convince us, that the soul is immortal, it''s indestructible. Well, lots of things can be Here''s a piece of paper. It can be destroyed. Why was it that this was the sort of thing that could be destroyed? Well, the straightforward answer is, the piece of paper had parts. And in breaking it, in ripping it, what I literally did was I ripped one part from another. To destroy the piece of paper, I take its parts apart. Here''s a piece of chalk. The piece of chalk can be broken. What am I doing? Taking its parts apart. The kinds of things that can be destroyed have parts. They are composite. They are composed of their parts. Bodies can be destroyed because you can take a sword to it and go sweep, sweep, sweep, and chop it into pieces. Composite things can be destroyed. Things that have parts can be destroyed. Now, what kinds of things can''t be destroyed?

', 'Now, as I''ve remarked previously, one of the amazing things - not amazing, but one of the really attractive things - about Plato''s dialogues is that when you raise an objection, it often seems as though Plato himself, whether or not he explicitly states it, is aware of the objection. He will go on to say something that is responsive to it. And again, that makes sense if you think of these dialogues as a kind of pedagogical tool to help you get better at philosophizing.

So the very next argument that Plato turns to can be viewed, I think, as responding to this unstated objection. Well, I stated it, but Plato doesn''t state it in the dialogue. The worry is that even if the soul was one of the parts and even if the soul was already around before we were born, how do we know it can''t come apart? How do we know the soul can''t be destroyed? Since what we want to know is whether the soul is immortal, how do we know it can''t? Plato''s next argument then tries to deal directly with this worry, and it''s a quite interesting argument. I''ll give it another label. I''ll call it The Argument from Simplicity.

Socrates turns to a discussion about what kinds of things can break and what kinds of things can''t break. What kinds of things can be destroyed and what kinds of things can''t be destroyed? He thinks about examples, surveys examples, and tries to extract a kind of metaphysical principle from this. And then, as we''ll see, he''s going to use this principle to convince us, or to try to convince us, that the soul is immortal, that it''s indestructible.

Well, lots of things can be destroyed. Here''s a piece of paper. It can be destroyed. Why was it that this was the sort of thing that could be destroyed? Well, the straightforward answer is that the piece of paper had parts. And in breaking it, in ripping it, what I literally did was I ripped one part from another. To destroy the piece of paper, I take its parts apart. Here''s a piece of chalk. The piece of chalk can be broken. What am I doing? Taking its parts apart. The kinds of things that can be destroyed have parts. They are composite. They are composed of their parts. Bodies can be destroyed because you can take a sword to it and go sweep, sweep, sweep, and chop it into pieces. Composite things can be destroyed. Things that have parts can be destroyed.

Now, what kinds of things can''t be destroyed?')
,('66', '5', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 5 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
of their parts. Bodies can be destroyed because you can take a sword to it and go sweep, sweep, sweep, and chop it into pieces. Composite things can be destroyed. Things that have parts can be destroyed. Now, what kinds of things can''t be destroyed?

Original:
Well, it won''t surprise you that when Plato looks for an example of something that''s eternal and indestructible, his mind immediately starts thinking about the platonic forms. Take the number three. The number three can''t be destroyed. Even if a nuclear explosion took place and everything on Earth got atomized and destroyed through some bizarre science fiction chain reaction, like they''re always doing in The number three wouldn''t be touched. The number three wouldn''t be phased. It would still be true that three plus one equals four. You can''t hurt the number three. You can''t alter or destroy perfect circularity. Why not? It doesn''t have any parts. That''s the thought. Things like the platonic form are eternal, and they''re eternal, changeless, indestructible, because they are simple. Simple here being the metaphysical notion that they''re not composed of anything. Anything that''s built up out of parts, you could at least in principle worry about the parts coming apart and hence the thing being destroyed. But anything that''s simple can''t be destroyed in that way. It has no parts to take apart. So the kinds of things that can be destroyed are the things with parts, and those are the sorts of things that change. Even if they''re not destroyed, what''s a tip-off to something being composite? The fact that it changes. Suppose I take a bar of metal and I bend it. I haven''t destroyed it, but I''ve changed it. I''m able to change it by rearranging the relationships between the various parts. My body is constantly changing because the relationships between my arms and my head and so forth, my muscles are moving. You rearrange the parts, the thing changes. Oh, but that means it''s got parts and could be destroyed. So we''ve got some nice generalizations. Things that change, You have parts. Things with parts can be destroyed. What are the kinds of things that you can change and destroy? Those are the familiar empirical objects that we can see. Pieces of paper, bodies, pieces of chalk, bars of metal. In contrast, on the whole other things that are invisible, like the number three. Nobody sees the number three. Things that are invisible, that never change. The number three never changes, right? The number three is an odd number. It''s not as though, oh, today it''s odd, but maybe tomorrow it''ll be even. It''s eternally an odd number. Three plus one equals four, today, yesterday and forever. These facts about the number three will never change. The number three is changeless.

', 'Well, it won''t surprise you that when Plato looks for an example of something that''s eternal and indestructible, his mind immediately starts thinking about the Platonic forms. Take the number three. The number three can''t be destroyed. Even if a nuclear explosion took place and everything on Earth got atomized and destroyed through some bizarre science fiction chain reaction, like they''re always doing in movies, the number three wouldn''t be touched. The number three wouldn''t be phased. It would still be true that three plus one equals four. You can''t hurt the number three. You can''t alter or destroy perfect circularity. Why not? It doesn''t have any parts. That''s the thought. Things like the Platonic form are eternal, and they''re eternal, changeless, indestructible, because they are simple. Simple here being the metaphysical notion that they''re not composed of anything. Anything that''s built up out of parts, you could at least in principle worry about the parts coming apart and hence the thing being destroyed. But anything that''s simple can''t be destroyed in that way. It has no parts to take apart. So the kinds of things that can be destroyed are the things with parts, and those are the sorts of things that change. Even if they''re not destroyed, what''s a tip-off to something being composite? The fact that it changes. Suppose I take a bar of metal and I bend it. I haven''t destroyed it, but I''ve changed it. I''m able to change it by rearranging the relationships between the various parts. My body is constantly changing because the relationships between my arms and my head and so forth, my muscles are moving. You rearrange the parts, the thing changes. Oh, but that means it''s got parts and could be destroyed. So we''ve got some nice generalizations. Things that change have parts. Things with parts can be destroyed. What are the kinds of things that you can change and destroy? Those are the familiar empirical objects that we can see. Pieces of paper, bodies, pieces of chalk, bars of metal. In contrast, on the whole, other things that are invisible, like the number three. Nobody sees the number three. Things that are invisible, that never change. The number three never changes, right? The number three is an odd number. It''s not as though, oh, today it''s odd, but maybe tomorrow it''ll be even. It''s eternally an odd number. Three plus one equals four, today, yesterday, and forever. These facts about the number three will never change. The number three is changeless.')
,('66', '6', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 6 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
r. It''s not as though, oh, today it''s odd, but maybe tomorrow it''ll be even. It''s eternally an odd number. Three plus one equals four, today, yesterday and forever. These facts about the number three will never change. The number three is changeless.

Original:
So the forms are eternal. They''re invisible. They are changeless. They''re simple. And simple things can''t be destroyed. Forms can''t be destroyed. You put all this together. These are the sorts of thoughts And I''ve got the initial thoughts up there on the board. All right, so premise number one, only composite things can be destroyed. Premise number two, only changing things are composite. So if you put one and two together, you''d get only changing things could be destroyed. But now add three. Invisible things don''t change. Well, if you''ve got to be the kind of thing that can change in order to be composite, you''ve got to be composite in order to be destroyed. Invisible things don''t change. It follows, for invisible things can''t be destroyed. That''s the metaphysical thesis that Socrates comes to by thinking about cases. And that''s the crucial premise or sub-conclusion for the immortality of the soul, because then Socrates invites us to think about the soul. Is the soul visible or invisible? He says, pretty obviously, it''s invisible. But if invisible things can''t be the soul can''t be destroyed. So 1,2, and 3 got us 4. Invisible things can''t be destroyed. But 5, the soul''s invisible, so 6, the soul can''t be destroyed. That''s my best attempt at reconstructing the argument from simplicity. It''s not as though Plato himself spells it out with premises and conclusions like that. But I think this is fairly faithful to the kind of argument he means to put forward. And in a moment, I''ll turn to evaluating whether that''s a good argument or not. But I think it''s a pretty interesting argument. It''s an argument worth taking Except I''ve got to confess to you that Socrates doesn''t quite conclude the way I would have thought he would have concluded. So I''ve had the argument conclude six, the soul can''t be destroyed. But what Socrates actually says is, his actual conclusion is, and so the soul is indestructible, or nearly so. That''s rather an odd qualification, or nearly so. The conclusion that Socrates reaches from his examination of change and invisibility and so forth and so on, and compositeness versus simplicity, is that the soul is indestructible, or nearly so. Now, adding that qualification opens the door to a worry. The worry gets raised by Even if we grant that the soul is nearly indestructible, that''s not good enough to get us immortality. And he gives the very nice analogy of somebody who''s a coat, which could outlast the owner, but isn''t immortal.

', 'So the forms are eternal. They''re invisible. They are changeless. They''re simple. And simple things can''t be destroyed. Forms can''t be destroyed.

You put all this together. These are the sorts of thoughts. And I''ve got the initial thoughts up there on the board. Alright, so premise number one, only composite things can be destroyed. Premise number two, only changing things are composite. So if you put one and two together, you''d get only changing things could be destroyed. But now add three. Invisible things don''t change. Well, if you''ve got to be the kind of thing that can change in order to be composite, you''ve got to be composite in order to be destroyed.

Invisible things don''t change. It follows, for invisible things can''t be destroyed. That''s the metaphysical thesis that Socrates comes to by thinking about cases. And that''s the crucial premise or sub-conclusion for the immortality of the soul, because then Socrates invites us to think about the soul. Is the soul visible or invisible? He says, pretty obviously, it''s invisible. But if invisible things can''t be destroyed, then the soul can''t be destroyed.

So 1, 2, and 3 got us 4. Invisible things can''t be destroyed. But 5, the soul''s invisible, so 6, the soul can''t be destroyed. That''s my best attempt at reconstructing the argument from simplicity. It''s not as though Plato himself spells it out with premises and conclusions like that. But I think this is fairly faithful to the kind of argument he means to put forward. And in a moment, I''ll turn to evaluating whether that''s a good argument or not. But I think it''s a pretty interesting argument. It''s an argument worth taking.

Except I''ve got to confess to you that Socrates doesn''t quite conclude the way I would have thought he would have concluded. So I''ve had the argument conclude six, the soul can''t be destroyed. But what Socrates actually says is, his actual conclusion is, "and so the soul is indestructible, or nearly so." That''s rather an odd qualification, "or nearly so." The conclusion that Socrates reaches from his examination of change and invisibility and so forth and so on, and compositeness versus simplicity, is that the soul is indestructible, or nearly so.

Now, adding that qualification opens the door to a worry. The worry gets raised by Even if we grant that the soul is nearly indestructible, that''s not good enough to get us immortality. And he gives the very nice analogy of somebody who''s a coat, which could outlast the owner, but isn''t immortal.')
,('66', '7', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 7 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
o a worry. The worry gets raised by Even if we grant that the soul is nearly indestructible, that''s not good enough to get us immortality. And he gives the very nice analogy of somebody who''s a coat, which could outlast the owner, but isn''t immortal.

Original:
Or the owner could go through But still, at some point, the owner is going to die as well. The owner is far more immortal in that sense, closer to immortality. I''ve gone through many coats in my life, but for all that, I''m not indestructible. If all we''ve got is the mere fact that the soul is nearly indestructible, it takes a whole lot more work to destroy it. Maybe it lasts a whole lot longer. Maybe it goes through a whole lot of bodies, being reincarnated a half dozen or a dozen or a hundred times before it wears out and gets destroyed. That''s not enough to give us the immortality of the soul. That''s the objection that Cebes raises. And one of the oddities is that, as far as I can see, Socrates never responds to that objection. Raises the objection, that is, Plato raises the objection in the voice of Cebes, but Socrates, on Plato''s behalf, never answers the objection. It''s hard to say what exactly is going on. It might be that Plato''s worried that he hasn''t really shown that the soul is immortal afterwards. Maybe this argument from simplicity isn''t really as good as it needs to be. And maybe that explains why Plato then goes on to offer yet another argument. After all, if this argument really did show the immortality of the soul, why would he need to offer a further argument, the argument from essential properties, which we''ll be turning to So maybe Plato just thought there wasn''t a good answer to CB''s objection. But I want to say, on Plato''s behalf, or at least on behalf of the argument, Socrates should never have concluded the argument with this odd qualifying phrase, that the soul is indestructible or nearly so. He should have just said, the soul is indestructible, full stop. After all, if we have premises one, two, and three, only composite things can be destroyed, only changing things are composite, invisible things don''t change. If you put those together, you get four. Invisible things can''t be You don''t get the more modest conclusion, invisible things can''t be destroyed or it''s a whole lot harder to destroy them. If we''ve got 1,2, and 3, we''re entitled to the bold conclusion, invisible things can''t be destroyed, period, full stop. And then if 5 is true, if the soul really is invisible, we''re entitled to conclude 6, the soul can''t be destroyed. Not, the soul can''t be destroyed, or if it can be destroyed, it''s very, very hard and takes a very, very long time. We are rather entitled to the bolder conclusion, the soul can''t be destroyed. Full stop.

', 'Or the owner could go through. But still, at some point, the owner is going to die as well. The owner is far more immortal in that sense, closer to immortality. I''ve gone through many coats in my life, but for all that, I''m not indestructible. If all we''ve got is the mere fact that the soul is nearly indestructible, it takes a whole lot more work to destroy it. Maybe it lasts a whole lot longer. Maybe it goes through a whole lot of bodies, being reincarnated a half dozen or a dozen or a hundred times before it wears out and gets destroyed. That''s not enough to give us the immortality of the soul. That''s the objection that Cebes raises. And one of the oddities is that, as far as I can see, Socrates never responds to that objection. Raises the objection, that is, Plato raises the objection in the voice of Cebes, but Socrates, on Plato''s behalf, never answers the objection. It''s hard to say what exactly is going on. It might be that Plato''s worried that he hasn''t really shown that the soul is immortal afterwards. Maybe this argument from simplicity isn''t really as good as it needs to be. And maybe that explains why Plato then goes on to offer yet another argument, the argument from essential properties, which we''ll be turning to. So maybe Plato just thought there wasn''t a good answer to Cebes'' objection. But I want to say, on Plato''s behalf, or at least on behalf of the argument, Socrates should never have concluded the argument with this odd qualifying phrase, that the soul is indestructible or nearly so. He should have just said, the soul is indestructible, full stop. After all, if we have premises one, two, and three, only composite things can be destroyed, only changing things are composite, invisible things don''t change. If you put those together, you get four. Invisible things can''t be. You don''t get the more modest conclusion, invisible things can''t be destroyed or it''s a whole lot harder to destroy them. If we''ve got 1, 2, and 3, we''re entitled to the bold conclusion, invisible things can''t be destroyed, period, full stop. And then if 5 is true, if the soul really is invisible, we''re entitled to conclude 6, the soul can''t be destroyed. Not, the soul can''t be destroyed, or if it can be destroyed, it''s very, very hard and takes a very, very long time. We are rather entitled to the bolder conclusion, the soul can''t be destroyed. Full stop.')
,('66', '8', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 8 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
d to conclude 6, the soul can''t be destroyed. Not, the soul can''t be destroyed, or if it can be destroyed, it''s very, very hard and takes a very, very long time. We are rather entitled to the bolder conclusion, the soul can''t be destroyed. Full stop.

Original:
Period. End of the discussion. So despite the fact that Socrates draws this weaker conclusion, it seems to me that the argument he''s offered us, if it works at all, entitles us to draw the bolder conclusion. Not that the soul is indestructible, or nearly so, but that the soul is indestructible. Maybe Plato realized that. Maybe that''s the reason why he doesn''t bother giving an answer to C.B.''s. Maybe it''s an invitation to the reader to recognize that there''s a better argument here than even the characters in the drama have noticed. Don''t know. Don''t know what Plato had in But at any rate, our question shouldn''t be, what was Plato thinking? But is the argument any good? Do we now have an argument for the immortality of the soul? After all, if the soul can''t be destroyed, it''s immortal. Is it a good argument or not? Simeon raises a different objection. Simeon says, We can''t conclude that the soul is indestructible, or nearly so, or whatever, because we should not believe the sub-conclusion four. Invisible things can''t be destroyed. Simeon says invisible things can be destroyed. And if that''s true, then of course we no longer have an argument for the indestructibility or near indestructibility of the soul. Because even if the soul is invisible, five, if nonetheless, contrary to what Socrates was claiming, invisible things can be destroyed, then maybe the invisible soul can be destroyed as well. Now, Simmias doesn''t merely assert baldly invisible things can be destroyed. He offers an example of an invisible thing that can be destroyed. Harmony. He starts talking about the harmony that gets produced by a stringed instrument, In fact, he says, this is a very nice example for us to think about because some people have suggested, Simeon says, some people have suggested that the mind is like harmony. It''s as though the mind is like harmony of the body. So to spell out the analogy a bit more fully, and I''ll say a bit more about it later, harmony is to the harp, as the mind is to the body. He says, there are people who put forward views like this. And at any rate, harmony can certainly be destroyed. You don''t see harmony. Harmony is invisible. But for all that, you can destroy harmony. So there''s the harp making its melodious, harmonious sounds. And then you take an axe to the harp, bang, bang, bang, chop, chop, chop, or a hammer or whatever. Now the harmony''s been destroyed.

', 'Period. End of the discussion. So despite the fact that Socrates draws this weaker conclusion, it seems to me that the argument he''s offered us, if it works at all, entitles us to draw the bolder conclusion. Not that the soul is indestructible, or nearly so, but that the soul is indestructible. Maybe Plato realized that. Maybe that''s the reason why he doesn''t bother giving an answer to C.B.''s. Maybe it''s an invitation to the reader to recognize that there''s a better argument here than even the characters in the drama have noticed. Don''t know. Don''t know what Plato had in mind. But at any rate, our question shouldn''t be, what was Plato thinking? But is the argument any good? Do we now have an argument for the immortality of the soul? After all, if the soul can''t be destroyed, it''s immortal. Is it a good argument or not? Simeon raises a different objection. Simeon says, "We can''t conclude that the soul is indestructible, or nearly so, or whatever, because we should not believe the sub-conclusion four. Invisible things can''t be destroyed." Simeon says invisible things can be destroyed. And if that''s true, then of course we no longer have an argument for the indestructibility or near indestructibility of the soul. Because even if the soul is invisible, five, if nonetheless, contrary to what Socrates was claiming, invisible things can be destroyed, then maybe the invisible soul can be destroyed as well. Now, Simmias doesn''t merely assert baldly, "Invisible things can be destroyed." He offers an example of an invisible thing that can be destroyed: harmony. He starts talking about the harmony that gets produced by a stringed instrument. In fact, he says, this is a very nice example for us to think about because some people have suggested, Simeon says, some people have suggested that the mind is like harmony. It''s as though the mind is like the harmony of the body. So to spell out the analogy a bit more fully, and I''ll say a bit more about it later, harmony is to the harp as the mind is to the body. He says, there are people who put forward views like this. And at any rate, harmony can certainly be destroyed. You don''t see harmony. Harmony is invisible. But for all that, you can destroy harmony. So there''s the harp making its melodious, harmonious sounds. And then you take an axe to the harp, bang, bang, bang, chop, chop, chop, or a hammer or whatever. Now the harmony''s been destroyed.')
,('66', '9', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 9 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
is invisible. But for all that, you can destroy harmony. So there''s the harp making its melodious, harmonious sounds. And then you take an axe to the harp, bang, bang, bang, chop, chop, chop, or a hammer or whatever. Now the harmony''s been destroyed.

Original:
So even though it''s invisible, you can destroy it by destroying the musical instrument on which it depends. And of course, there''s the worry, right? If the mind is like the harmony of the body, then maybe you could destroy the mind, the soul, by destroying the body on which the mind depends. So the crucial point right now is that thinking about harmony is offered as a counterexample to the generalization that invisible things can''t be Harmony is invisible. Harmony can be destroyed. So invisible things can be destroyed. So you''re wrong, Socrates, when you say invisible things can''t be destroyed. So even if we grant that the soul is invisible as well, maybe the soul also is an invisible thing that can be destroyed. That''s a great objection. It''s an objection worth taking And the oddity is, Socrates doesn''t respond to it in the way that he should have, in the way that he needed to. Socrates instead spends some time worrying about the question, is the soul really like harmony or not? Is this metaphor, think about the relationship between the mind and the body, as similar to the relationship between harmony and a harp? Socrates spends some time criticizing that analogy. Now, in a few minutes I''ll turn In a few minutes I''ll turn to the question, what about Socrates'' criticisms of the analogy? Are they good criticisms or not? But even if they are good criticisms, I want to say that''s not good enough to help your argument, Socrates. Even if we were to say, The mind isn''t very much like harmony at all. That analogy really stinks. So what? All that Simmius needs to cause problems for Socrates'' argument is the claim that harmony is invisible and harmony can be destroyed. As long as that is true, we can''t continue to believe that invisible things can''t be So what Socrates needs to do is to say, either harmony can''t be destroyed, but pretty obviously it can. The melodious sounds coming out of an instrument can be destroyed. So he would need to argue then, perhaps, that harmony''s not really invisible. If he could show us, if he could convince us that harmony''s not really invisible, then we would no longer have a counterexample to the claim that the invisible can''t be destroyed. And the argument could still then proceed as it was before. So that''s what Socrates should have done. He should have said, you know what? Harmony''s not really invisible or can''t be destroyed. But there''s not a whiff of that, at least in the dialogue as we''ve got it.

', 'So even though it''s invisible, you can destroy it by destroying the musical instrument on which it depends. And of course, there''s the worry, right? If the mind is like the harmony of the body, then maybe you could destroy the mind, the soul, by destroying the body on which the mind depends. So the crucial point right now is that thinking about harmony is offered as a counterexample to the generalization that invisible things can''t be destroyed. Harmony is invisible. Harmony can be destroyed. So invisible things can be destroyed. So you''re wrong, Socrates, when you say invisible things can''t be destroyed.

So even if we grant that the soul is invisible as well, maybe the soul also is an invisible thing that can be destroyed. That''s a great objection. It''s an objection worth taking. And the oddity is, Socrates doesn''t respond to it in the way that he should have, in the way that he needed to. Socrates instead spends some time worrying about the question, is the soul really like harmony or not? Is this metaphor, think about the relationship between the mind and the body, as similar to the relationship between harmony and a harp? Socrates spends some time criticizing that analogy.

Now, in a few minutes I''ll turn to the question, what about Socrates'' criticisms of the analogy? Are they good criticisms or not? But even if they are good criticisms, I want to say that''s not good enough to help your argument, Socrates. Even if we were to say, "The mind isn''t very much like harmony at all. That analogy really stinks. So what?" All that Simmius needs to cause problems for Socrates'' argument is the claim that harmony is invisible and harmony can be destroyed. As long as that is true, we can''t continue to believe that invisible things can''t be destroyed.

So what Socrates needs to do is to say, either harmony can''t be destroyed, but pretty obviously it can. The melodious sounds coming out of an instrument can be destroyed. So he would need to argue then, perhaps, that harmony''s not really invisible. If he could show us, if he could convince us that harmony''s not really invisible, then we would no longer have a counterexample to the claim that the invisible can''t be destroyed. And the argument could still then proceed as it was before. So that''s what Socrates should have done. He should have said, "You know what? Harmony''s not really invisible or can''t be destroyed." But there''s not a whiff of that, at least in the dialogue as we''ve got it.')
,('66', '10', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 10 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
could still then proceed as it was before. So that''s what Socrates should have done. He should have said, you know what? Harmony''s not really invisible or can''t be destroyed. But there''s not a whiff of that, at least in the dialogue as we''ve got it.

Original:
Not a whiff of that, as far as I can see. Socrates never says, Simeus, here''s where your objection goes wrong. Harmony is not really invisible. It can''t really be destroyed, whatever it is. So we don''t really have a counterexample. Instead, he gets hung up on this question, is it a good analogy? Is it a good way for thinking about the mind or not? But even if it isn''t, that wouldn''t save the argument. Now, I am going to take some time to think about whether or not harmony is a good analogy, because I actually think it is a good analogy. I think what''s going on in the harmony way, the suggestion that we should think about the mind like harmony, as though it was the harmony of the body, is an early attempt to state the physicalist view. Talk about the mind, says the physicalist, is just a way of talking about the body. Or more carefully, it''s a way about talking about certain things the body can do when it''s functioning properly, when it''s well-tuned, as we might put it. Just like talk about the or the melodious sounds, or what have you, of the harp are a way of talking about what things the harp can do. It can produce melodious, harmonious sounds when it''s functioning properly, when it''s well-tuned. So the harmony, So analogy is, I think, an attempt, and not a bad attempt, at gesturing towards the question, how do physicalists think about the mind? Now, when I try to get you to grasp how physicalists think about the mind, I use examples about computers and robots and the like. Well, it''s not remotely surprising that Plato doesn''t use those kinds of analogies. He doesn''t have computers. He doesn''t have robots. Still, he has physical objects that can do things. And the ability to do things depends on the proper functioning of the physical object. And so I think he can see that there''s this alternative to his He could see that you could be a physicalist and say that the mind is dependent on the body. The mind is just a way of talking about what the body can do when it''s working properly. It''s dependent in just the same way that, well, for example, harmony is dependent upon the physical instrument. So I think it''s a very nice attempt to discuss the physicalist alternative to Plato''s dualism. And that''s why it''ll be worth taking some time to ask ourselves, well, what about Plato''s objections then? If he can convince us that the souls not like harmony of the body, maybe that''ll be some sort of problem for the physicalist.

', 'Not a whiff of that, as far as I can see. Socrates never says, "Simeus, here''s where your objection goes wrong. Harmony is not really invisible. It can''t really be destroyed, whatever it is. So we don''t really have a counterexample." Instead, he gets hung up on this question: is it a good analogy? Is it a good way for thinking about the mind or not? But even if it isn''t, that wouldn''t save the argument. Now, I am going to take some time to think about whether or not harmony is a good analogy because I actually think it is a good analogy. I think what''s going on in the harmony way, the suggestion that we should think about the mind like harmony, as though it was the harmony of the body, is an early attempt to state the physicalist view.

Talk about the mind, says the physicalist, is just a way of talking about the body. Or more carefully, it''s a way about talking about certain things the body can do when it''s functioning properly, when it''s well-tuned, as we might put it. Just like talk about the melodious sounds, or what have you, of the harp are a way of talking about what things the harp can do. It can produce melodious, harmonious sounds when it''s functioning properly, when it''s well-tuned. So the harmony, So analogy is, I think, an attempt, and not a bad attempt, at gesturing towards the question: how do physicalists think about the mind?

Now, when I try to get you to grasp how physicalists think about the mind, I use examples about computers and robots and the like. Well, it''s not remotely surprising that Plato doesn''t use those kinds of analogies. He doesn''t have computers. He doesn''t have robots. Still, he has physical objects that can do things. And the ability to do things depends on the proper functioning of the physical object. And so I think he can see that there''s this alternative to his [dualism]. He could see that you could be a physicalist and say that the mind is dependent on the body. The mind is just a way of talking about what the body can do when it''s working properly. It''s dependent in just the same way that, well, for example, harmony is dependent upon the physical instrument.

So I think it''s a very nice attempt to discuss the physicalist alternative to Plato''s dualism. And that''s why it''ll be worth taking some time to ask ourselves, well, what about Plato''s objections then? If he can convince us that the soul''s not like harmony of the body, maybe that''ll be some sort of problem for the physicalist.')
,('66', '11', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 11 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
Plato''s dualism. And that''s why it''ll be worth taking some time to ask ourselves, well, what about Plato''s objections then? If he can convince us that the souls not like harmony of the body, maybe that''ll be some sort of problem for the physicalist.

Original:
So I''ll come back to that in a But first, let''s worry about the point that I was emphasizing earlier. Namely, look, even if the soul''s not very much like harmony, so what? If harmony really is invisible and harmony really can be destroyed, then invisible things can be destroyed. Even if the soul''s nothing like, that''s not a good analogy for thinking about the physical position or what have you, If some invisible things can be destroyed, and harmony is an example of that, then by golly, it''s going to follow that we can''t conclude from the invisibility of the soul that the soul cannot be destroyed. So even though Socrates doesn''t respond to that objection, we need to ask on Socrates'' behalf, is there a possible answer to this objection? And I think there''s at least the beginnings of one. We have to ask, when we say invisible things can''t be destroyed, what did we mean by invisible? And I want to distinguish three different possible interpretations, three different claims. So invisible means, One, there''s one possibility, can''t be seen. Two, different possibility, can''t be observed. I''ve got in mind the broader notion of all five senses. Three, different possible interpretation of invisible. Can''t be detected. What we have to ask ourselves is, when Socrates puts his argument forward, which of these did he have in mind? First, let''s be clear on how these things are different. Some things can''t be seen but can be sensed. some other way. So colors can be seen. Smells cannot be seen. But of course, smells, the smell of coffee, can be sensed through the five senses. Sounds can''t be seen. They''re not visible. But for all that, they can be sensed. You can hear them through your So without getting hung up on what does the English word invisible mean, let''s just notice that there''s a difference between saying it can''t be seen through the eyes and can''t be observed through one sense or the other. And then three is a different notion altogether, a stronger notion altogether. There might be things that can''t even be detected through any of the five senses. The number three. Not only can''t I see it, I can''t taste it, I can''t hear it, I can''t smell it, I can''t touch it. The number three is invisible in this much bolder way. It can''t be detected at all by the five senses. It can''t be detected in terms It doesn''t leave traces behind, right? I don''t see dinosaurs, but of course they leave traces behind in fossils.

', 'So I''ll come back to that, but first, let''s worry about the point that I was emphasizing earlier. Namely, look, even if the soul''s not very much like harmony, so what? If harmony really is invisible and harmony really can be destroyed, then invisible things can be destroyed. Even if the soul''s nothing like that, it''s not a good analogy for thinking about the physical position or what have you. If some invisible things can be destroyed, and harmony is an example of that, then by golly, it''s going to follow that we can''t conclude from the invisibility of the soul that the soul cannot be destroyed.

So even though Socrates doesn''t respond to that objection, we need to ask on Socrates'' behalf, is there a possible answer to this objection? And I think there''s at least the beginnings of one. We have to ask, when we say invisible things can''t be destroyed, what did we mean by invisible? And I want to distinguish three different possible interpretations, three different claims.

So "invisible" means, one, there''s one possibility, can''t be seen. Two, a different possibility, can''t be observed. I''ve got in mind the broader notion of all five senses. Three, a different possible interpretation of invisible, can''t be detected. What we have to ask ourselves is, when Socrates puts his argument forward, which of these did he have in mind?

First, let''s be clear on how these things are different. Some things can''t be seen but can be sensed in some other way. So colors can be seen. Smells cannot be seen. But of course, smells, the smell of coffee, can be sensed through the five senses. Sounds can''t be seen. They''re not visible. But for all that, they can be sensed. You can hear them through your ears.

So without getting hung up on what does the English word "invisible" mean, let''s just notice that there''s a difference between saying it can''t be seen through the eyes and can''t be observed through one sense or the other. And then three is a different notion altogether, a stronger notion altogether. There might be things that can''t even be detected through any of the five senses. The number three. Not only can''t I see it, I can''t taste it, I can''t hear it, I can''t smell it, I can''t touch it. The number three is invisible in this much bolder way. It can''t be detected at all by the five senses. It can''t be detected in terms of leaving traces behind, right? I don''t see dinosaurs, but of course they leave traces behind in fossils.')
,('66', '12', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 12 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
it. The number three is invisible in this much bolder way. It can''t be detected at all by the five senses. It can''t be detected in terms It doesn''t leave traces behind, right? I don''t see dinosaurs, but of course they leave traces behind in fossils.

Original:
There''s a way in which you could talk about it being detected by its effects. All right. So again, don''t get hung up on what does the English word invisible mean. Let''s just ask ourselves, what notion of invisibility, if we''ll use the word between these three ways, what notion did Socrates'' argument turn on? Well, the most natural way to start by interpreting him is with number one. When he says invisible things don''t change, what he means is things that you can''t see don''t change. And so, continuing to interpret invisible in number four the same way, invisible things can''t be destroyed. On that first interpretation, what he''d be saying is, if you can''t see it with your eyes, it can''t be destroyed. The trouble is, harmony shows that that''s not so. Harmony is indeed invisible in sense number one. You cannot see it with your eyes. But for all that, it can be destroyed. So if what Socrates means by invisibility is the first notion, can''t be seen with your eyes, then the argument''s not any good. Harmony is a pretty compelling But maybe that''s not what Socrates means by invisible. Maybe instead of one, he means two. When he talks about the soul being invisible and invisible things being indestructible, maybe he means things that can''t be observed through any of your five senses. Now, in point of fact, I think that is what he meant. Let me just give a quick quote. In our edition, this is page 29. Some of you may have noticed that there''s little standardized paginations in our edition as well. So it''s in the Academy Paginations, He''s talking about the difference between the visible and the invisible things, chairs versus the forms. And he says, these latter, chairs, trees, stones, you could touch and see and perceive with the other senses. But those that always remain the same, the forms, can only be grasped by the reasoning power of the mind. They are not seen but are So I think it''s pretty clear that when Socrates starts talking about what''s visible versus invisible, he doesn''t mean to limit himself to vision. He means to be talking about all of the five senses. So when we say, when he says, invisible things can''t be destroyed, he means the things that you can''t see or touch or hear or feel, whatever it is, see, touch, smell, taste. Those things can''t be Now, notice that if that''s the way we interpret his argument, harmony no longer works as a counterexample. Harmony was invisible when we meant definition number one, can''t be seen.

', 'There''s a way in which you could talk about it being detected by its effects. Alright, so again, don''t get hung up on what does the English word "invisible" mean. Let''s just ask ourselves, what notion of invisibility, if we''ll use the word between these three ways, what notion did Socrates'' argument turn on? Well, the most natural way to start by interpreting him is with number one. When he says invisible things don''t change, what he means is things that you can''t see don''t change. And so, continuing to interpret invisible in number four the same way, invisible things can''t be destroyed. On that first interpretation, what he''d be saying is, if you can''t see it with your eyes, it can''t be destroyed. The trouble is, harmony shows that that''s not so. Harmony is indeed invisible in sense number one. You cannot see it with your eyes. But for all that, it can be destroyed. So if what Socrates means by invisibility is the first notion, can''t be seen with your eyes, then the argument''s not any good. Harmony is a pretty compelling counterexample. But maybe that''s not what Socrates means by invisible. Maybe instead of one, he means two. When he talks about the soul being invisible and invisible things being indestructible, maybe he means things that can''t be observed through any of your five senses. Now, in point of fact, I think that is what he meant. Let me just give a quick quote. In our edition, this is page 29. Some of you may have noticed that there''s little standardized paginations in our edition as well. So it''s in the Academy Paginations. He''s talking about the difference between the visible and the invisible things, chairs versus the forms. And he says, "these latter, chairs, trees, stones, you could touch and see and perceive with the other senses. But those that always remain the same, the forms, can only be grasped by the reasoning power of the mind. They are not seen but are..." So I think it''s pretty clear that when Socrates starts talking about what''s visible versus invisible, he doesn''t mean to limit himself to vision. He means to be talking about all of the five senses. So when we say, when he says, invisible things can''t be destroyed, he means the things that you can''t see or touch or hear or feel, whatever it is, see, touch, smell, taste. Those things can''t be... Now, notice that if that''s the way we interpret his argument, harmony no longer works as a counterexample. Harmony was invisible when we meant definition number one, can''t be seen.')
,('66', '13', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 13 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
feel, whatever it is, see, touch, smell, taste. Those things can''t be Now, notice that if that''s the way we interpret his argument, harmony no longer works as a counterexample. Harmony was invisible when we meant definition number one, can''t be seen.

Original:
But it''s not invisible if we mean definition number two, can''t be sensed, can''t be observed. Harmony can be sensed through In which case, it''s not a counterexample. It''s not a counterexample to IV. IV says invisible things can''t be destroyed. And what Socrates should have said is, harmony is not invisible in the relevant sense of invisible, since it can be sensed. But, and this would be the crucial point, notice, Socrates should have continued, the soul is invisible in that sense. You don''t see the soul. You don''t taste the soul. You don''t touch the soul. You don''t hear the soul. So if we understand the argument in terms of the second It looks as though the argument still goes through. Simeon''s counter-example fails. Harmony is not invisible in the relevant sense, so it could still be true that invisible things can''t be destroyed. Since the soul is invisible in that sense, it would follow that the soul can''t be destroyed. Even if Simeon''s objection, his particular counterexample, harmony, fails, that doesn''t mean that we should still accept the argument, because there might be a different counterexample. So here''s my proposal. Suppose we think not about Radio waves are not sensible. They are not observable. You don''t see a radio wave. You can''t touch a radio wave. You can''t smell a radio wave. And interestingly enough, you can''t hear radio waves. But of course, for all that, So even if we grant that what Socrates meant by invisible was cannot be observed, we still have to say, with Simeon, four is just not true. Some invisible things can be destroyed. Radio waves can be destroyed, even though they''re invisible, in the relevant sense. Yeah, question? Okay, so the suggestion was radio waves are a bit like the forms. They''re not forms, but they''re perfect in that way. Was that the thought? Ah, okay, I misunderstood. So the question is rather, look, radio waves are not like forms. To which the answer is, yes, that''s exactly the problem. They are invisible like the forms, but unlike the forms, they''re destructible. And that''s precisely why we''ve got to worry about the soul. Is the soul invisible in the way the forms are, being indestructible, or is it invisible in the way that radio waves are, destructible? Again, my point here is not to say, oh, you idiot, Plato, why didn''t you think of radio waves? Our question is not, was Plato overlooking something he should have thought of?

', 'But it''s not invisible if we mean definition number two: can''t be sensed, can''t be observed. Harmony can be sensed through. In which case, it''s not a counterexample. It''s not a counterexample to IV. IV says invisible things can''t be destroyed. And what Socrates should have said is, harmony is not invisible in the relevant sense of invisible, since it can be sensed. But, and this would be the crucial point, notice, Socrates should have continued, the soul is invisible in that sense. You don''t see the soul. You don''t taste the soul. You don''t touch the soul. You don''t hear the soul. So if we understand the argument in terms of the second, it looks as though the argument still goes through. Simeon''s counter-example fails. Harmony is not invisible in the relevant sense, so it could still be true that invisible things can''t be destroyed. Since the soul is invisible in that sense, it would follow that the soul can''t be destroyed. Even if Simeon''s objection, his particular counterexample, harmony, fails, that doesn''t mean that we should still accept the argument, because there might be a different counterexample. So here''s my proposal. Suppose we think not about Radio waves are not sensible. They are not observable. You don''t see a radio wave. You can''t touch a radio wave. You can''t smell a radio wave. And interestingly enough, you can''t hear radio waves. But of course, for all that, So even if we grant that what Socrates meant by invisible was cannot be observed, we still have to say, with Simeon, four is just not true. Some invisible things can be destroyed. Radio waves can be destroyed, even though they''re invisible, in the relevant sense. Yeah, question? Okay, so the suggestion was radio waves are a bit like the forms. They''re not forms, but they''re perfect in that way. Was that the thought? Ah, okay, I misunderstood. So the question is rather, look, radio waves are not like forms. To which the answer is, yes, that''s exactly the problem. They are invisible like the forms, but unlike the forms, they''re destructible. And that''s precisely why we''ve got to worry about the soul. Is the soul invisible in the way the forms are, being indestructible, or is it invisible in the way that radio waves are, destructible? Again, my point here is not to say, "oh, you idiot, Plato, why didn''t you think of radio waves?" Our question is not, was Plato overlooking something he should have thought of?')
,('66', '14', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 14 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
ructible, or is it invisible in the way that radio waves are, destructible? Again, my point here is not to say, oh, you idiot, Plato, why didn''t you think of radio waves? Our question is not, was Plato overlooking something he should have thought of?

Original:
It''s, does his argument work or Is it true that the invisible things can''t be destroyed? And it seems to me that some things that are invisible in the relevant sense, radio waves being an example of that, can be destroyed. So even though the soul is also invisible in the relevant sense, maybe it can be destroyed as well. Now the answer, it seems to me, the only answer I can imagine Socrates or Plato giving at this is to say, look, I need a different definition of invisible. Not two, but three. Don''t talk about what we can sense. Talk about what we can detect. Radio waves can be detected. After all, radios do that. You turn on your radio, the radio wave''s passing by, boom, properly tuned. You detect it. It turns it into these sounds that we can hear. We can detect radio waves on the basis of their effects on radios, among other things. So maybe by invisible he should have moved to this stronger, bolder definition of invisible. Let''s call something invisible not only if it can''t be seen, not only if it can''t be observed, but if it can''t be detected at all. Look, the forms, after all, can''t be detected. There''s no radio for the number three that will tell you. There''s no Geiger counter to tell you the number three is nearby or something, So Plato could still insist things that are invisible in the sense of undetectable can''t be destroyed. But radio waves, they''re detectable. So they''re not a counterexample, now that we interpret the relevant notion of invisibility as undetectability. So couldn''t Plato continue to claim things that are fully invisible, meaning undetectable, those things can''t be Radio waves aren''t a counterexample to that. I think maybe Plato could say that. But if we give him four, where we read invisible as meaning utterly undetectable, it''s no longer so clear to me that we can give him five. Is the soul invisible? Well, it was when by invisibility we meant can''t be seen. It was when by invisibility we meant can''t be tasted or touched or heard or smelled. But is it still invisible if by invisibility we mean can''t be detected? Is it true that the soul can''t be detected? I''ve got to say, I think it''s no longer right. Once we interpret invisibility that way, the soul is detectable in just the way, or not literally just the way, but in something similar to the way that radio waves are detectable. If you hook a radio wave up with a radio, you can tell the radio wave was there because of what the radio''s doing, giving off these sounds.

', 'It''s not, "does his argument work?" or "Is it true that the invisible things can''t be destroyed?" And it seems to me that some things that are invisible in the relevant sense, radio waves being an example of that, can be destroyed. So even though the soul is also invisible in the relevant sense, maybe it can be destroyed as well.

Now, the answer, it seems to me, the only answer I can imagine Socrates or Plato giving, is to say, "look, I need a different definition of invisible." Not two, but three. Don''t talk about what we can sense. Talk about what we can detect. Radio waves can be detected. After all, radios do that. You turn on your radio, the radio wave''s passing by, boom, properly tuned. You detect it. It turns it into these sounds that we can hear. We can detect radio waves on the basis of their effects on radios, among other things. So maybe by invisible, he should have moved to this stronger, bolder definition of invisible.

Let''s call something invisible not only if it can''t be seen, not only if it can''t be observed, but if it can''t be detected at all. Look, the forms, after all, can''t be detected. There''s no radio for the number three that will tell you. There''s no Geiger counter to tell you the number three is nearby or something. So Plato could still insist things that are invisible in the sense of undetectable can''t be destroyed. But radio waves, they''re detectable. So they''re not a counterexample, now that we interpret the relevant notion of invisibility as undetectability. So couldn''t Plato continue to claim things that are fully invisible, meaning undetectable, those things can''t be? Radio waves aren''t a counterexample to that. I think maybe Plato could say that.

But if we give him four, where we read invisible as meaning utterly undetectable, it''s no longer so clear to me that we can give him five. Is the soul invisible? Well, it was when by invisibility we meant can''t be seen. It was when by invisibility we meant can''t be tasted or touched or heard or smelled. But is it still invisible if by invisibility we mean can''t be detected? Is it true that the soul can''t be detected? I''ve got to say, I think it''s no longer right. Once we interpret invisibility that way, the soul is detectable in just the way, or not literally just the way, but in something similar to the way that radio waves are detectable. If you hook a radio wave up with a radio, you can tell the radio wave was there because of what the radio''s doing, giving off these sounds.')
,('66', '15', '2008-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Your primary task is to identify and correct spelling mistakes within the provided content, ensuring it remains true to the original message.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 15 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
t the way, or not literally just the way, but in something similar to the way that radio waves are detectable. If you hook a radio wave up with a radio, you can tell the radio wave was there because of what the radio''s doing, giving off these sounds.

Original:
If you hook a soul up to a body, you can tell the soul is there by what the body''s doing, discussing philosophy with you. You detect the presence of your friend''s soul through its effects on your friend''s body. But that means the soul isn''t But if the soul''s not really undetectable, it''s not really invisible in the relevant sense. And if it''s not really invisible, then even if there is a notion of invisible, such that things that are invisible in that sense can''t be destroyed, soul''s not invisible in that sense. I''ve gone over this argument at such length because, I hope it''s clear, I think it''s a pretty interesting argument. The argument from simplicity is quite fascinating. The idea that you couldn''t break the soul if it didn''t have parts, and the way to tell that it doesn''t have parts is because it''s invisible, because invisible things can''t have parts. That''s a quite difficult argument to pin down, does it work or does it not work. But I think, as we think it all through, we have to conclude it doesn''t work.

', 'If you hook a soul up to a body, you can tell the soul is there by what the body''s doing - discussing philosophy with you. You detect the presence of your friend''s soul through its effects on your friend''s body. But that means the soul isn''t really undetectable, it''s not really invisible in the relevant sense. And if it''s not really invisible, then even if there is a notion of invisibility, such that things that are invisible in that sense can''t be destroyed, the soul''s not invisible in that sense. I''ve gone over this argument at such length because, I hope it''s clear, I think it''s a pretty interesting argument. The argument from simplicity is quite fascinating. The idea that you couldn''t break the soul if it didn''t have parts, and the way to tell that it doesn''t have parts is because it''s invisible, because invisible things can''t have parts. That''s a quite difficult argument to pin down - does it work or does it not work? But I think, as we think it all through, we have to conclude it doesn''t work.')
,('78', '1', '2023-08-05', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
its a well known fact that the earth revolves arround the sun. but, have you ever wondered how this came to be discovered.

Corrected:
It''s a well-known fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But, have you ever wondered how this came to be discovered?

Prior Context:

Original:
we are living in unprecedented times. Never before have we faced such challenges and opportunities.

Corrected:
We are living in unprecedented times. Never before have we faced such challenges and opportunities.



Prior Context:


Original:
Well, howdy there internet people. It''s Beau again. So today we are going to talk a little bit more about Trump''s statement and provide a little bit of an update. We''re going to talk about the federal government''s response to that statement and answer the question that keeps coming in about it and just kind of go over where we''re at on this because, wow, that happened fast. If you missed it and have no idea what I''m talking about, a quick recap of this is that when Trump was recently arraigned in DC, the judge provided a little bit of a caution, not even a warning, just a bit of advice when it comes to how he should conduct himself and basically said, Don''t threaten witnesses or jurors or retaliate, that kind of thing. Trump took to his little social media thing and said something to the effect of, if you go after me, I''m coming after you, you know. And I put out a video basically saying, we haven''t seen the last of that statement. That''s going to come back. I expected to be making this video on Monday. The feds had filed within like two hours of that video going out. They are asking for a protective order. That''s it. They''re just asking for a protective order and this is part of the question that comes in. But let''s go over what they said in the filing. All the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials including to the public. Goes on Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him. Simple, right? Simple, not much to it. And the question is, why is that all they''re going for? Because realistically, the feds would be well within their rights to seek detainment. And the answer is pretty simple. The feds are asking for what they were probably going to ask for anyway. I feel as though the feds were going to request this protective order even before his little social media message went out. When you were in school, there was probably a kid in your class who never really told on you for doing something you weren''t supposed to do. but he might have drawn attention to it. You know, if you were at recess and you left the playground and went off into the woods or something, he didn''t tell the teacher that you did it, but he might ask the teacher where you''re at, that kind of thing. Dry snitching.

', 'Well, howdy there internet people. It''s Beau again. So today we are going to talk a little bit more about Trump''s statement and provide a little bit of an update. We''re going to talk about the federal government''s response to that statement and answer the question that keeps coming in about it and just kind of go over where we''re at on this because, wow, that happened fast.

If you missed it and have no idea what I''m talking about, a quick recap of this is that when Trump was recently arraigned in DC, the judge provided a little bit of a caution, not even a warning, just a bit of advice when it comes to how he should conduct himself and basically said, "Don''t threaten witnesses or jurors or retaliate, that kind of thing." Trump took to his little social media thing and said something to the effect of, "if you go after me, I''m coming after you, you know."

And I put out a video basically saying, we haven''t seen the last of that statement. That''s going to come back. I expected to be making this video on Monday. The feds had filed within like two hours of that video going out. They are asking for a protective order. That''s it. They''re just asking for a protective order and this is part of the question that comes in.

But let''s go over what they said in the filing. "All the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials including to the public." Goes on "Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him."

Simple, right? Simple, not much to it. And the question is, why is that all they''re going for? Because realistically, the feds would be well within their rights to seek detainment. And the answer is pretty simple. The feds are asking for what they were probably going to ask for anyway. I feel as though the feds were going to request this protective order even before his little social media message went out.

When you were in school, there was probably a kid in your class who never really told on you for doing something you weren''t supposed to do, but he might have drawn attention to it. You know, if you were at recess and you left the playground and went off into the woods or something, he didn''t tell the teacher that you did it, but he might ask the teacher where you''re at, that kind of thing. Dry snitching.')
,('78', '2', '2023-08-05', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending



Prior Context:
drawn attention to it. You know, if you were at recess and you left the playground and went off into the woods or something, he didn''t tell the teacher that you did it, but he might ask the teacher where you''re at, that kind of thing. Dry snitching.

Original:
So that social media message, it''s in the filing. The judge who warned Trump not to engage in what certainly seems to be that exact behavior is going to see it. The protective order makes sense with or without that statement. So this may be the federal government just being like, hey, this is all we want. while simultaneously alerting the judge to Trump''s activities. And the judge can provide the protective order, maybe do more if they want to. I think that''s what''s going on. We probably won''t get a resolution on this until Monday. I could be wrong because I didn''t expect them to file within hours. We''ll have to wait and see. My guess is, once again, just like the last video, we haven''t heard the end of news associated with this statement. There will probably be more to come. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.

', 'So that social media message is in the filing. The judge, who warned Trump not to engage in what certainly seems to be that exact behavior, is going to see it. The protective order makes sense with or without that statement. So this may be the federal government just being like, "Hey, this is all we want," while simultaneously alerting the judge to Trump''s activities. And the judge can provide the protective order, maybe do more if they want to. I think that''s what''s going on. We probably won''t get a resolution on this until Monday. I could be wrong because I didn''t expect them to file within hours. We''ll have to wait and see. My guess is, once again, just like the last video, we haven''t heard the end of news associated with this statement. There will probably be more to come. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.')
,('85', '1', '2023-09-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story

Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome story

Prior Context:

Original:
once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.

Corrected:
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.



Prior Context:


Original:
Well, howdy there, Internet people. It''s Beau again. So today, we are going to talk about China, G20, and explanations for unknown variables. Because something happened, looks like it''s going to happen, and it''s unexpected. And there are a lot of people trying to explain this unexpected development. Okay, so what is the development? It does not look like the Chinese head of state is going to attend G20, which is an international forum primarily focused on economic matters. This is unusual. I think most people expected the Chinese head of state to attend. Biden was like, you know, I''m disappointed, but I''ll see him later. Something to that effect. Him not attending has led to people speculating as to why. The first reason is there is growing tension between India and China. We mentioned the maps recently and there''s a territory dispute. the G20 meeting will be in India. So obviously that''s why he didn''t want to go. Another one is that Biden''s going to be there and China and the United States are experiencing, let''s just say, a rough patch in their relationship. So that''s another explanation. Another is that they don''t want to answer any questions about their current relationship with Russia. Yeah, okay, that works too. That''s another possible explanation. And then still another is this is a Chinese power move to try to play up BRICS, which is in some ways seen as a competitor, That''s more of a competitor to G7, in my way of thinking anyway. So there''s another one, and then there''s the idea that, well, he''s just gotten too big for his britches. I think the foreign policy statement on it is that he has developed an emperor mindset, and he thinks that foreign officials should come to him. I mean, okay. And then there''s the simple answer. This is primarily an economic forum and China''s economy is in a little bit of a stumble right now. So which one is it? And you have debates over this right now. You have people debating which one of these reasons is the real reason that he''s not going to show up. I want you to think about you being invited to a dinner with your friends, some event, and you had to work late the night before. You don''t really feel that well. There''s a show on TV that you want to watch. You don''t really like the restaurant, and there''s going to be somebody there who you don''t actually like. Also, you''re broke. Okay. Which one of those reasons is the reason you didn''t go? Probably a combination of all of them, right? All interacting together.

', 'Well, howdy there, Internet people. It''s Beau again. So today, we are going to talk about China, G20, and explanations for unknown variables. Because something happened, looks like it''s going to happen, and it''s unexpected. And there are a lot of people trying to explain this unexpected development.

Okay, so what is the development? It does not look like the Chinese head of state is going to attend G20, which is an international forum primarily focused on economic matters. This is unusual. I think most people expected the Chinese head of state to attend. Biden was like, you know, I''m disappointed, but I''ll see him later. Something to that effect.

Him not attending has led to people speculating as to why. The first reason is there is growing tension between India and China. We mentioned the maps recently and there''s a territory dispute. The G20 meeting will be in India. So obviously that''s why he didn''t want to go.

Another one is that Biden''s going to be there and China and the United States are experiencing, let''s just say, a rough patch in their relationship. So that''s another explanation.

Another is that they don''t want to answer any questions about their current relationship with Russia. Yeah, okay, that works too. That''s another possible explanation.

And then still another is this is a Chinese power move to try to play up BRICS, which is in some ways seen as a competitor, That''s more of a competitor to G7, in my way of thinking anyway. So there''s another one, and then there''s the idea that, well, he''s just gotten too big for his britches. I think the foreign policy statement on it is that he has developed an emperor mindset, and he thinks that foreign officials should come to him. I mean, okay.

And then there''s the simple answer. This is primarily an economic forum and China''s economy is in a little bit of a stumble right now. So which one is it? And you have debates over this right now. You have people debating which one of these reasons is the real reason that he''s not going to show up.

I want you to think about you being invited to a dinner with your friends, some event, and you had to work late the night before. You don''t really feel that well. There''s a show on TV that you want to watch. You don''t really like the restaurant, and there''s going to be somebody there who you don''t actually like. Also, you''re broke. Okay. Which one of those reasons is the reason you didn''t go? Probably a combination of all of them, right? All interacting together.')
,('85', '2', '2023-09-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?



Prior Context:
really like the restaurant, and there''s going to be somebody there who you don''t actually like. Also, you''re broke. Okay. Which one of those reasons is the reason you didn''t go? Probably a combination of all of them, right? All interacting together.

Original:
Foreign policy doesn''t exist in a vacuum, right? So the real reason is probably not a reason. It''s probably a combination of reasons. This is something you see a whole lot when people are talking about foreign policy. They''re trying to look for a singular reason for something to have occurred. Most times, it''s not one thing. It''s a combination of a whole bunch of things that leads to an unexpected development. When things are running as they should, foreign policy is pretty predictable. It''s a lot like how political parties act. When things are operating, the way they''re supposed to, it''s pretty predictable. There''s not a lot of surprises. So when a surprise occurs, people want to explain it. Generally speaking, people want to find one reason. It''s almost never one reason. It''s generally a combination of different things. If you want a different example of this, think about All of the debates you''ve seen over why Russia actually invaded Ukraine. And there''s tons, there''s tons of explanations. It''s probably not any one of them. It''s a combination of several of them. A lot of the debates, they really don''t matter because both people are right. Both of these things factor into it. is important to recognize because this is one of those things that can lead people into information silos, can lead people to start following rabbit holes and get to a place where they''re consuming a lot of bad information in an information silo. Because once you lock into one of these reasons, let''s say bricks, He''s avoiding this. He''s not going to go to this because he wants to put more importance on bricks. That may have something to do with it. But if you chalk that up as his only reason for doing it, well that kind of means that you''ll start assigning a lot of other a lot of other moves to that same motive, because you start to accept that as the thing he really cares about the most, even though you may not have any actual evidence to suggest that. Don''t look for a single motive. And this goes to U.S. politics. It goes to foreign policy. It goes to your own personal life. Most times there is more than one reason something unexpected occurred. If I had to guess which is most important, it''s probably the simple answer. It''s an economic forum and China''s economy is kind of, it''s bumpy right now. It''s probably that as far as a main motivating factor. The simplest answer. But I''m willing to bet all of this other stuff might play into it in some way.

', 'Foreign policy doesn''t exist in a vacuum, right? So the real reason is probably not a reason. It''s probably a combination of reasons. This is something you see a whole lot when people are talking about foreign policy. They''re trying to look for a singular reason for something to have occurred. Most times, it''s not one thing. It''s a combination of a whole bunch of things that leads to an unexpected development.

When things are running as they should, foreign policy is pretty predictable. It''s a lot like how political parties act. When things are operating the way they''re supposed to, it''s pretty predictable. There aren''t a lot of surprises. So when a surprise occurs, people want to explain it. Generally speaking, people want to find one reason. It''s almost never one reason. It''s generally a combination of different things.

If you want a different example of this, think about all of the debates you''ve seen over why Russia actually invaded Ukraine. And there are tons of explanations. It''s probably not any one of them. It''s a combination of several of them. A lot of the debates really don''t matter because both people are right. Both of these things factor into it. It''s important to recognize because this is one of those things that can lead people into information silos, can lead people to start following rabbit holes, and get to a place where they''re consuming a lot of bad information in an information silo.

Because once you lock into one of these reasons, let''s say bricks, he''s avoiding this. He''s not going to go to this because he wants to put more importance on bricks. That may have something to do with it. But if you chalk that up as his only reason for doing it, well, that kind of means that you''ll start assigning a lot of other moves to that same motive because you start to accept that as the thing he really cares about the most, even though you may not have any actual evidence to suggest that.

Don''t look for a single motive. And this applies to U.S. politics, foreign policy, and your own personal life. Most times there is more than one reason something unexpected occurred. If I had to guess which is most important, it''s probably the simple answer. It''s an economic forum and China''s economy is kind of bumpy right now. It''s probably that as far as a main motivating factor. The simplest answer. But I''m willing to bet all of this other stuff might play into it in some way.')
,('85', '3', '2023-09-04', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.



Prior Context:
the simple answer. It''s an economic forum and China''s economy is kind of, it''s bumpy right now. It''s probably that as far as a main motivating factor. The simplest answer. But I''m willing to bet all of this other stuff might play into it in some way.

Original:
Don''t get caught up trying to find the one piece of the puzzle when you know that it''s a whole puzzle and there''s a bunch of pieces. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.

', 'Don''t get caught up trying to find the one piece of the puzzle when you know that it''s a whole puzzle and there''s a bunch of pieces. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.')
,('86', '1', '2014-09-19', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.

Prior Context:

Original:
well howdy there Internet pee pool let''s bow again got a wholesome story

Corrected:
Well howdy there internet people it''s Beau again. I''ve got a wholesome storyPrior Context:

Original:
we are living in unprecedented times. Never before have we faced such challenges and opportunities.

Corrected:
We are living in unprecedented times. Never before have we faced such challenges and opportunities.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
Once the Supreme Court had upheld the death penalty in 1976 in the three cases, Gregg v. Georgia, Profitt v. Florida, and Juerg v. Texas, there were still a number of issues remaining for the court to decide. One of those was the proportionality. What crimes did the death penalty apply to? What about the role of the offender in the crime, the role that a person played where several people were involved. For certain crimes, all of the three cases handled or decided by the court in 1976 were murder cases. But what about the death penalty for cases in which the victim is not killed? Many of the states which adopted new death penalty statutes, particularly Georgia, provided for the death penalty not only for murder but for rape, kidnapping, and other offenses. And so the court ultimately decided that. And then finally, for certain offenders, particularly people who are mentally disabled and children, is the death penalty excessive or disproportionate for those individuals? And what we''re going to see in today''s class as we look through this is the court is going to be counting the states. How many states have provided for whatever the court''s considering? Does this show that there''s a trend, or does it show that there''s a consensus among the states? Because again, we''re back to what we talked about with the Eighth Amendment. What are the evolving standards of decency that mark the development of the law? And then we''ll also see the court look at whether or not, with each of these questions, the purpose of punishment is served, and that''s deterrence and retribution. So let''s first look at the question of the role of the offender in the crime. Several people are engaged, say, in carrying out a crime. Each person has a different role. One person may be the lookout. One person may be the driver of the getaway car. And perhaps there was no intent when this crime was planned for there to be any injury to anyone or any loss of life. But often unexpected things happen. The police respond and shots ring out and someone is killed. And then we assess the role of each person. They''re all going to be guilty, as we''ll talk about in a moment, of murder. but the degree of culpability may be different. And so the question is going to be, are they culpable enough to be sentenced to death? And I''d like to talk about two cases where the Supreme Court decided that.

', 'Once the Supreme Court had upheld the death penalty in 1976 in the three cases, Gregg v. Georgia, Profitt v. Florida, and Juerg v. Texas, there were still a number of issues remaining for the court to decide. One of those was the proportionality. What crimes did the death penalty apply to? What about the role of the offender in the crime, the role that a person played where several people were involved?

For certain crimes, all three cases handled or decided by the court in 1976 were murder cases. But what about the death penalty for cases in which the victim is not killed? Many of the states which adopted new death penalty statutes, particularly Georgia, provided for the death penalty not only for murder but for rape, kidnapping, and other offenses. And so the court ultimately decided that.

And then finally, for certain offenders, particularly people who are mentally disabled and children, is the death penalty excessive or disproportionate for those individuals? And what we''re going to see in today''s class as we look through this is the court is going to be counting the states. How many states have provided for whatever the court''s considering? Does this show that there''s a trend, or does it show that there''s a consensus among the states? Because again, we''re back to what we talked about with the Eighth Amendment. What are the evolving standards of decency that mark the development of the law?

And then we''ll also see the court look at whether or not, with each of these questions, the purpose of punishment is served, and that''s deterrence and retribution. So let''s first look at the question of the role of the offender in the crime. Several people are engaged, say, in carrying out a crime. Each person has a different role. One person may be the lookout. One person may be the driver of the getaway car. And perhaps there was no intent when this crime was planned for there to be any injury to anyone or any loss of life. But often unexpected things happen. The police respond and shots ring out and someone is killed. And then we assess the role of each person. They''re all going to be guilty, as we''ll talk about in a moment, of murder. But the degree of culpability may be different.

And so the question is going to be, are they culpable enough to be sentenced to death? And I''d like to talk about two cases where the Supreme Court decided that.')
,('86', '2', '2014-09-19', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.', 'Prior Context:
we''ll talk about in a moment, of murder. but the degree of culpability may be different. And so the question is going to be, are they culpable enough to be sentenced to death? And I''d like to talk about two cases where the Supreme Court decided that.
Original:
Both of these cases involve the felony murder rule, which is a rule that just basically says anyone who commits a felony in committing a felony in which a murder is committed, that person is guilty of murder, first-degree murder, regardless of whether he or she committed or attempted to commit or intended to commit the murder. In other words, going back to my example, three people are involved. The person who''s the lookout is going to be just as guilty of murder as the person who actually fired the trigger that brought about the death. But there''s obviously different degrees of culpability between the lookout and the person who actually pulls the trigger. And of course, part of that is going to be based on what the people do. That was what actions do they take. And part of it is going to be based on the state of mind. This first came to the court in the case of Earl Inman versus Florida. This was the getaway driver in an armed robbery. And the question the court had to decide was could he be sentenced to death, he had been sentenced to death, and the question was could he be sentenced to death if his participation in the crime was, as the court said, tangential and He had no attempt, excuse me, no intent to kill or for life to be taken. In the case, the court looks at the different states and it finds Florida''s one of only eight states that allows the death penalty for a person who participates in a robbery where the other robber is the person who takes the life. They find that of the 739 people who were under death sentence at the time the Inman case was decided, only 41 were people who had not actually taken the life. So again, the court is looking at what do the states provide, and then they''re looking at what has been the practice, even in the states that allowed this. Then the court examines retribution and deterrence. And they decide in this case that retribution and deterrence is not served because Inman''s participation was so tangential. So the court holds that the death penalty is disproportionate. Very close case. It''s a 5-4 decision. Justice White writing for a majority of the court and Justice O''Connor as well as Chief Justice Berger and Justice Powell and Justice Rehnquist dissenting. The court is now going to look at a case with a very different set of facts and we''re going to see Justice White move over to the other side. Ricky Wayne and Raymond Curtis Tyson broke their father out of a prison in Arizona.

', 'Both of these cases involve the felony murder rule, which is a rule that basically says that anyone who commits a felony in which a murder is committed is guilty of murder, first-degree murder, regardless of whether they committed, attempted, or intended to commit the murder. In other words, going back to my example, if three people are involved, the person who is the lookout is just as guilty of murder as the person who actually fired the trigger that caused the death. However, there are obviously different degrees of culpability between the lookout and the person who pulls the trigger. This is based on the actions they take and their state of mind. This issue first came before the court in the case of Earl Inman versus Florida. In this case, Inman was the getaway driver in an armed robbery. The court had to decide whether he could be sentenced to death, as he had been sentenced to death, despite his tangential participation in the crime and his lack of intent to kill or take a life. The court found that Florida was one of only eight states that allowed the death penalty for a person who participated in a robbery where someone else took a life. They also found that out of the 739 people under death sentence at the time of the Inman case, only 41 were individuals who had not actually taken a life. Therefore, the court examined the states'' provisions and the prevailing practices even in the states that allowed this punishment. The court also analyzed retribution and deterrence and concluded that in Inman''s case, the death penalty was disproportionate due to his tangential participation. This was a close case, decided by a 5-4 majority with Justice White writing for the majority, joined by Justice O''Connor, Chief Justice Berger, Justice Powell, and Justice Rehnquist dissenting. The court now turns to a case with different facts, where we will see Justice White switch sides. Ricky Wayne and Raymond Curtis Tyson broke their father out of an Arizona prison.')
,('86', '3', '2014-09-19', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.

Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spendingPrior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.', 'Prior Context:
ce Rehnquist dissenting. The court is now going to look at a case with a very different set of facts and we''re going to see Justice White move over to the other side. Ricky Wayne and Raymond Curtis Tyson broke their father out of a prison in Arizona.
Original:
They had a large amount of weapons in an ice chest, which they snuck into the prison, and they actually succeeded in this breakout. Their father, Gary Tyson, and another prisoner, Randy Greenwell, were broken out of prison. And while they''re trying to make their getaway, they end up breaking down on the road, a couple stops to give help, and it was just a terrible crime. Greenwald and Gary Tyson, the father, kill this couple who''ve been so nice to stop and offer them a ride as well as their children. So it''s a horrendous crime, but the police apprehend them after a shootout, but Gary Tyson has died. He goes out into the desert. He can''t find his way back. He dies of exposure. So the brothers are the people left to be tried. Greenwald gets the death penalty. There''s no question about his involvement. But the two brothers are arguing that they did not intend to kill anyone, that father and the other fellow had taken these people away and that they were walking back to the car at the time the shots rang out and they found out that these people had been killed. And they said also they didn''t cause the death of the victims in this case. And as a result of that, their argument was that while they were guilty of murder, they can''t be subjected to the death penalty. They can be put in prison for the rest of their life, but not the death penalty. This time, the court looks at the breakout, looks at the guns involved, looks at all of the factors in the case and decides five to four, that the death penalty can be imposed against the Tyson brothers. Justice O''Connor writes for the court, joined by the Chief Justice as well as Justice White, who had written a previous opinion at Inman, Powell, and Scalia. And the court finds that there is a consensus among the states that major participation, remember that Earl Inman''s participation was tangential. Now the court''s talking about major participation, breaking someone out of prison, trying to escape with them. And a mental state that the court calls reckless disregard for human life. That if you participate in an activity like this, you''re likely to realize the risk that there may be human life taken as a part of it. And therefore, the level of culpability is more than Inman''s, and that''s sufficient for the death penalty.

', 'They had a large amount of weapons in an ice chest, which they snuck into the prison, and they actually succeeded in this breakout. Their father, Gary Tyson, and another prisoner, Randy Greenwell, were broken out of prison. And while they''re trying to make their getaway, they end up breaking down on the road. A couple stops to give help, and it was just a terrible crime. Greenwell and Gary Tyson, the father, kill this couple who''ve been so nice to stop and offer them a ride, as well as their children. So it''s a horrendous crime, but the police apprehend them after a shootout, but Gary Tyson has died. He goes out into the desert. He can''t find his way back. He dies of exposure. So the brothers are the people left to be tried. Greenwell gets the death penalty. There''s no question about his involvement. But the two brothers are arguing that they did not intend to kill anyone, that the father and the other fellow had taken these people away and that they were walking back to the car at the time the shots rang out and they found out that these people had been killed. And they said also they didn''t cause the death of the victims in this case. And as a result of that, their argument was that while they were guilty of murder, they can''t be subjected to the death penalty. They can be put in prison for the rest of their life, but not the death penalty. This time, the court looks at the breakout, looks at the guns involved, looks at all of the factors in the case, and decides five to four that the death penalty can be imposed against the Tyson brothers. Justice O''Connor writes for the court, joined by the Chief Justice as well as Justice White, who had written a previous opinion at Inman, Powell, and Scalia. And the court finds that there is a consensus among the states that major participation, remember that Earl Inman''s participation was tangential. Now the court''s talking about major participation, breaking someone out of prison, trying to escape with them. And a mental state that the court calls reckless disregard for human life. That if you participate in an activity like this, you''re likely to realize the risk that there may be human life taken as a part of it. And therefore, the level of culpability is more than Inman''s, and that''s sufficient for the death penalty.')
,('86', '4', '2014-09-19', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?', 'Prior Context:
n life. That if you participate in an activity like this, you''re likely to realize the risk that there may be human life taken as a part of it. And therefore, the level of culpability is more than Inman''s, and that''s sufficient for the death penalty.
Original:
Justice Brennan, joined by three other members of the court dissent, they would treat the Tysons just like Inman, and they would say that because of the role that they played, because they weren''t the actual killers, and because they didn''t intend to kill, because they were surprised by what their father and the other person did that they should not be subject to the death penalty. But the court has now established that major participation, reckless disregard is going to be enough to make someone eligible for the death penalty in co-defendant cases. The court next turns to the question of whether crimes that don''t involve a homicide are subject to the death penalty. Very soon after the 1976 cases, the court looks at Coker versus Georgia, and the question presented there to the Supreme Court is whether the sentence of death for the rape of an adult woman violates the Eighth Amendment''s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. It''s important to note adult woman, because even after the court decided this case, there remained a question about whether or not sexual abuse or rape of a child might be eligible for the death penalty. But Georgia''s problem in arguing for the death penalty for the crime of rape was that it was fairly well isolated. After the Furman decision had come down and a number of states adopted new death penalty statutes, only three, Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana, provided the death penalty for the crime of rape. But the North Carolina and Louisiana statutes were both found to be unconstitutional in 1976 in Woodson v. North Carolina and Roberts v. Louisiana. So Georgia now is left as the only state that makes this provision. So when the court now does this examination of how many states have this punishment, Georgia finds itself all alone. The court looks at the last 50 years and notices that a majority of the states have not punished rape with the death penalty in the last 50 years. In 1925, 18 states provided for the death penalty, as well as the District of Columbia and the federal government. By 1971, that number had gone down just a bit, 16 states and the federal government. But by the time Coker''s decided, in 1977, only Georgia. So Georgia is one out of 50 states that provides this punishment.

', 'Justice Brennan, joined by three other members of the court in dissent, would treat the Tysons just like Inman. They would argue that because the Tysons played a role in the crime, but were not the actual killers and did not intend to kill, they should not be subject to the death penalty. However, the court has now established that major participation and reckless disregard are enough to make someone eligible for the death penalty in co-defendant cases.

The court then turns to the question of whether crimes that do not involve a homicide are subject to the death penalty. Shortly after the 1976 cases, the court examines Coker v. Georgia. The question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the death sentence for the rape of an adult woman violates the Eighth Amendment''s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. It is important to note that this case specifically deals with the rape of an adult woman, as there is still a question about whether the rape of a child could be eligible for the death penalty.

Georgia''s argument for the death penalty for rape is weak because it is the only state that still has this provision. After the Furman decision and the adoption of new death penalty statutes, only Georgia, North Carolina, and Louisiana provided the death penalty for rape. However, the North Carolina and Louisiana statutes were both found to be unconstitutional in 1976. Therefore, Georgia stands alone in its provision for the death penalty for rape.

The court examines the past 50 years and finds that a majority of states have not punished rape with the death penalty during this time period. In 1925, 18 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the federal government, provided for the death penalty for rape. By 1971, this number had decreased to 16 states and the federal government. By the time of the Coker decision in 1977, Georgia was the only state that still had this punishment. Georgia represents just one out of the 50 states that provides for the death penalty in rape cases.')
,('86', '5', '2014-09-19', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending', 'Prior Context:
ict of Columbia and the federal government. By 1971, that number had gone down just a bit, 16 states and the federal government. But by the time Coker''s decided, in 1977, only Georgia. So Georgia is one out of 50 states that provides this punishment.
Original:
The court then looks to what have the juries in Georgia been doing with regard to this, and it finds that of the 63 rape cases that have happened, or that have been tried capitally in Georgia since this statute was adopted, only six times have juries imposed the death penalty. So the court concludes that it''s infrequent, that only one state has it, and even in the state that has it, it''s infrequently used. Justice White writes the opinion and expresses the, not only does the counting of the states, but expresses the abiding conviction that the death penalty is excessive for the crime of rape, particularly since some people who actually kill people don''t get the death penalty. What we''re seeing here is the court is roughly going to say that the death penalty is limited to cases where life is taken. The same day that Coker was decided, the Supreme Court just issued a little one-paragraph opinion in a case called Eberhardt v. Georgia. in which it said that the death penalty could not be imposed for the crime of kidnapping where there had not been a loss of life. And as we''ll see, the court is going to decide in Kennedy v. Louisiana that even in the case of a child, the death penalty cannot be imposed where there is no loss of life. Brennan and Marshall, in this case, say that the death penalty is always unconstitutional. So they join the majority of Justice White''s rights and they side with him, but for a different reason. Justice Powell says the death penalty may be constitutional for aggravated rape. And then Chief Justice Berger, joined by Justice Rehnquist, says that rape is not disproportionate. And he looks at Coker in particular. In three years, Coker had raped three people, he had killed one, he had tried to kill another, and he had escaped. If ever there''s a person Chief Justice Berger is saying, for whom the death penalty is appropriate for this crime, it''s Coker. He describes him as a, the Chief Justice describes Coker as a chronic rapist and a continuing threat to society. But that''s the dissenting opinion. So the result of the case is that the death penalty cannot be imposed in a rape case where there''s no loss of life. Now we move to Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which the court took on the sort of exception here. Coker had been about an adult person. Kennedy v. Louisiana presents the question of a child. Once again, this is Justice Anthony Kennedy is going to write the opinion for the Supreme Court.

', 'The court then looks at what the juries in Georgia have been doing regarding this, and it finds that out of the 63 rape cases that have been tried capitally in Georgia since this statute was adopted, juries have only imposed the death penalty six times. So the court concludes that it''s infrequent, as only one state has it, and even in that state, it''s rarely used. Justice White writes the opinion and expresses not only the count of the states but also the firm belief that the death penalty is excessive for the crime of rape, especially since some people who actually kill don''t receive the death penalty. The court is essentially stating that the death penalty is limited to cases where a life is taken. On the same day that Coker was decided, the Supreme Court issued a brief one-paragraph opinion in a case called Eberhardt v. Georgia, in which it stated that the death penalty cannot be imposed for the crime of kidnapping where there has been no loss of life. And as we''ll see, the court will decide in Kennedy v. Louisiana that even in the case of a child, the death penalty cannot be imposed when there is no loss of life. Brennan and Marshall, in this case, argue that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, so they join the majority and side with Justice White, but for a different reason. Justice Powell believes that the death penalty may be constitutional for aggravated rape. Chief Justice Berger, joined by Justice Rehnquist, argues that rape is not disproportionate and specifically looks at Coker. In three years, Coker had raped three people, killed one, attempted to kill another, and escaped. Chief Justice Berger is arguing that if there is ever a person for whom the death penalty is appropriate for this crime, it''s Coker. He describes Coker as a chronic rapist and a continuing threat to society. But this is the dissenting opinion. So the result of the case is that the death penalty cannot be imposed in a rape case where there is no loss of life. Now we move to Kennedy v. Louisiana, which addresses an exception to this. Coker was about an adult, while Kennedy v. Louisiana presents the question of a child. Once again, Justice Anthony Kennedy will write the opinion for the Supreme Court.')
,('86', '6', '2014-09-19', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.', 'Prior Context:
iana, in which the court took on the sort of exception here. Coker had been about an adult person. Kennedy v. Louisiana presents the question of a child. Once again, this is Justice Anthony Kennedy is going to write the opinion for the Supreme Court.
Original:
Very interesting what he says in prefacing his analysis of the issue here. that when the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint. He says, the evolving standards of decency counsel us to be most hesitant before interpreting the Eighth Amendment in a way that''s going to extend the death penalty. The court is limited in many ways, and now Justice Kennedy is saying we should be very hesitant to extend the death penalty. Decency in its essence presumes respect for the individual and thus moderation and restraint in the application of capital punishment. It''s a remarkable statement for a majority of the Supreme Court. He''s writing for a majority of the court. uh... in this opinion uh... which uh... shows some hesitancy certainly to extend the death penalty and uh... some concern that whenever the court is dealing uh... with the death penalty it as he says uh... risks its own sudden descent into brutality when we look at some of the other death penalty cases decided by the court we don''t quite see that same concern uh... Well, the court does, once again, it looks at the states and it finds that 44 states have not made such a crime punishable by death. Since 1964, which is even back before Furman, eight years before Furman, only Louisiana has sentenced anyone to death for this offense. No one has been executed for a non-homicide crime since 1963. And only two people Both in Louisiana were under the death sentence at the time for the rape of a child. So the court sees here that with regard, again, to looking, is there a consensus in the country with regard to this punishment, death, this extraordinary punishment, this irrevocable punishment, for even a terrible crime, and there''s no question the crime in this case, in any case involving a child and a sexual abuse of a child is a horrible crime, but does it Is the culpability of the offender such that death can be imposed? And the court here says we''re not going to have the death penalty where there''s not a loss of life. It points out that retribution, the difference between a particularly depraved Murder, where the person is killed and where the person is not killed, is a distinction that has to be made here. The deterrence, actually this may cut against deterrence because Justice Kennedy sees a risk of non-reporting.

', 'Very interesting what he says in prefacing his analysis of the issue here, that when the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint. He says, the evolving standards of decency counsel us to be most hesitant before interpreting the Eighth Amendment in a way that''s going to extend the death penalty. The court is limited in many ways, and now Justice Kennedy is saying we should be very hesitant to extend the death penalty. Decency in its essence presumes respect for the individual and thus moderation and restraint in the application of capital punishment. It''s a remarkable statement for a majority of the Supreme Court. He''s writing for a majority of the court. Uh... in this opinion, uh... which, uh... shows some hesitancy certainly to extend the death penalty and, uh... some concern that whenever the court is dealing, uh... with the death penalty, it, as he says, uh... risks its own sudden descent into brutality. When we look at some of the other death penalty cases decided by the court, we don''t quite see that same concern. Uh... Well, the court does, once again, it looks at the states and it finds that 44 states have not made such a crime punishable by death. Since 1964, which is even back before Furman, eight years before Furman, only Louisiana has sentenced anyone to death for this offense. No one has been executed for a non-homicide crime since 1963. And only two people, both in Louisiana, were under the death sentence at the time for the rape of a child. So the court sees here that with regard, again, to looking, is there a consensus in the country with regard to this punishment, death, this extraordinary punishment, this irrevocable punishment, for even a terrible crime, and there''s no question the crime in this case, in any case involving a child and a sexual abuse of a child, is a horrible crime, but does it? Is the culpability of the offender such that death can be imposed? And the court here says we''re not going to have the death penalty where there''s not a loss of life. It points out that retribution, the difference between a particularly depraved murder, where the person is killed and where the person is not killed, is a distinction that has to be made here. The deterrence, actually this may cut against deterrence because Justice Kennedy sees a risk of non-reporting.')
,('86', '7', '2014-09-19', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.

Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spendingPrior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.', 'Prior Context:
n a particularly depraved Murder, where the person is killed and where the person is not killed, is a distinction that has to be made here. The deterrence, actually this may cut against deterrence because Justice Kennedy sees a risk of non-reporting.
Original:
The court was informed by a number of briefs, some of them from advocates for children, who point out that most of the sexual assaults that take place are not by strangers who break into the child''s bedroom in the middle of the night, but by family members, by teachers, coaches, priests, ministers, people that the family knows, and that if you know that that person who''s been abusing you might be subject to the death penalty. It might be a reason for some children to not report the crimes. This is not going to serve the purpose. And also, this gives the perpetrator a motive if the perpetrator is going to be subject to the death penalty to kill the victim. Finally, he adds this point, a special risk of wrongful execution that children, because they''re highly susceptible to suggestive questioning, are are there going to be, at least sometimes, not that they''re likely to give evidence that''s not going to be accurate, but that there''s a risk of this happening. And this is what the court is concerned about in all of these cases. Are we worried about a risk of the death penalty being imposed in a case where it shouldn''t be, and particularly here in a case where 44 other states have decided not to have the death penalty for this crime and only two people have been sentenced. So the court puts all that together and comes to the conclusion that the death penalty is not appropriate in this case.

', 'The court was informed by a number of briefs, some of them from advocates for children who point out that most of the sexual assaults that take place are not by strangers who break into the child''s bedroom in the middle of the night, but by family members, by teachers, coaches, priests, ministers, people that the family knows. And that if you know that that person who''s been abusing you might be subject to the death penalty, it might be a reason for some children to not report the crimes. This is not going to serve the purpose. And also, this gives the perpetrator a motive if the perpetrator is going to be subject to the death penalty, to kill the victim. Finally, he adds this point, a special risk of wrongful execution that children, because they''re highly susceptible to suggestive questioning, are there going to be, at least sometimes, not that they''re likely to give evidence that''s not going to be accurate, but that there''s a risk of this happening. And this is what the court is concerned about in all of these cases. Are we worried about a risk of the death penalty being imposed in a case where it shouldn''t be, and particularly here in a case where 44 other states have decided not to have the death penalty for this crime and only two people have been sentenced? So the court puts all that together and comes to the conclusion that the death penalty is not appropriate in this case.')
,('87', '1', '2019-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Please assist the user with their request, ensuring you provide the best possible solution.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
in ancient times, people beleived the earth was the center of the universe. this was known as the geocentric model.

Corrected:
In ancient times, people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This was known as the geocentric model.

Prior Context:

Original:
In the beggining, there was only chaos and void. then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Corrected:
In the beginning, there was only chaos and void. Then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.



Prior Context:


Original:
Space is big, but it''s peanuts compared to the eternally inflating multiverse. But just how many bubble universes does the eternally inflating multiverse contain? What are they like? And most importantly, what can they tell us about aliens? Imagine it. The observable part of our universe is 93 billion light years across, and that''s just a small fraction of the stuff created in our Big Bang. But in the eternal inflation picture, ours is just one among uncountable bubble universes, bubbles that are continuously appearing and growing within a vastly larger spacetime that itself expands at an exponentially accelerating rate. a greater inflationary spacetime whose expansion never ends. We looked at the bizarre idea of eternal inflation in recent episodes, but we stopped short of exploring the full implications of this proposition. Those implications are, frankly, completely nuts. Some may also be true. Here''s the scenario. The default state of the greater universe, or multiverse, is to expand exponentially, due to the vacuum of space itself having a large and constant energy density. Energy locked into something called the inflaton field. Within that inflating space, tiny patches stop inflating. The inflaton field in that patch loses its energy and so accelerating expansion stops there. Within each bubble we get a new big bang that kicks off a more slowly expanding universe. But that bubble has an edge, and the edge spreads into the surrounding inflating spacetime at the speed of light, causing inflation to stop within the growing bubble. If lots of bubbles form, they could collide with each other to produce a connected network of non-inflating universe. But the little patches where inflation persists are expanding so fast that they quickly dominate the non-inflating network of bubbles, and so the cycle of inflation continues eternally. Some questions spring to mind. I mean, besides, what? For example, how many bubbled universes can be made this way? How often do they collide? Are those universes similar to each other or wildly different? I''ll give you an idea of our best thinking for all of these. Let''s start with the first two because these are basically the answers to our recent challenge question. Now to fully answer these we would need to know the true physics of the inflaton field, but we can figure some stuff out just based on the exponential nature of expansion.

', 'Space is big, but it''s peanuts compared to the eternally inflating multiverse. But just how many bubble universes does the eternally inflating multiverse contain? What are they like? And most importantly, what can they tell us about aliens?

Imagine it. The observable part of our universe is 93 billion light years across, and that''s just a small fraction of the stuff created in our Big Bang. But in the eternal inflation picture, ours is just one among uncountable bubble universes, bubbles that are continuously appearing and growing within a vastly larger spacetime that itself expands at an exponentially accelerating rate - a greater inflationary spacetime whose expansion never ends.

We looked at the bizarre idea of eternal inflation in recent episodes, but we stopped short of exploring the full implications of this proposition. Those implications are, frankly, completely nuts. Some may also be true. Here''s the scenario.

The default state of the greater universe, or multiverse, is to expand exponentially, due to the vacuum of space itself having a large and constant energy density - energy locked into something called the inflaton field. Within that inflating space, tiny patches stop inflating. The inflaton field in that patch loses its energy and so accelerating expansion stops there. Within each bubble we get a new big bang that kicks off a more slowly expanding universe. But that bubble has an edge, and the edge spreads into the surrounding inflating spacetime at the speed of light, causing inflation to stop within the growing bubble.

If lots of bubbles form, they could collide with each other to produce a connected network of non-inflating universes. But the little patches where inflation persists are expanding so fast that they quickly dominate the non-inflating network of bubbles, and so the cycle of inflation continues eternally.

Some questions spring to mind. I mean, besides, what? For example, how many bubbled universes can be made this way? How often do they collide? Are those universes similar to each other or wildly different? I''ll give you an idea of our best thinking for all of these. Let''s start with the first two because these are basically the answers to our recent challenge question.

Now to fully answer these we would need to know the true physics of the inflaton field, but we can figure some stuff out just based on the exponential nature of expansion.')
,('87', '2', '2019-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Please assist the user with their request, ensuring you provide the best possible solution.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.



Prior Context:
two because these are basically the answers to our recent challenge question. Now to fully answer these we would need to know the true physics of the inflaton field, but we can figure some stuff out just based on the exponential nature of expansion.

Original:
For example, in the challenge question I asked you to calculate the relative number of new bubble universes that formed in one second compared to in the previous second. We assume that there''s a fixed but unknown probability that a bubble universe will form in any given volume of inflating space. That means the number of bubbles forming at each point in time should be proportional to the volume of the inflating universe at that time. So the rate at which that volume is increasing is the same as the rate at which bubble universes multiply. We assumed the minimum inflation rate that we think was needed to kick off our own universe. The scale factor, or radius of the universe, increased by a factor of at least 10 to the power of 26 in less than 10 to the power of negative 32 seconds. So how much did the volume increase over one full second at that rate? Well, a scale factor or radius increase of 10 to the power of 26 means a volume increase of that cubed, so 10 to the power of 78. Every 10 to the power of negative 32 seconds, 1 cubic meter of volume becomes 10 to the 78 cubic meters, which is approximately the volume of our entire universe. And then in the next 10 to the negative 32 seconds, each of those 10 to the 78 new 1 meter cubes spawns just as many new entire universe-sized volumes. So we have 10 to the 78 squared, then 10 to the 78 cubed, etc. By the time we get to one full second, we''ve multiplied by 10 to the 78 10 to the 32 times. So our volume is 10 to the 78 to the power of 10 to the 32, or around 10 to the 10 to the 34. And our number of new bubble universes should multiply by that same insane factor each second. This gives us a ridiculously large number of universes, even if the probability of making one universe per unit volume is insanely low. The exponential nature of expansion guarantees this. As soon as the inflating spacetime is big enough to make one universe, in the next second it should make 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 34 universes, and so on. If you got this right, congrats. We''ll list the winners as well as answer the extra credit question at the end of this video. After the bit about the aliens. As crazy as eternal inflation sounds, it''s still fun to think about the consequences if all of this is true. Here''s another one. Do all of these bubble universes have the same laws of physics? Or could they be wildly different from each other? Based on standard ideas, they probably have the same number of dimensions as ours.

', 'For example, in the challenge question, I asked you to calculate the relative number of new bubble universes that formed in one second compared to the previous second. We assume that there''s a fixed but unknown probability that a bubble universe will form in any given volume of inflating space. That means the number of bubbles forming at each point in time should be proportional to the volume of the inflating universe at that time. So the rate at which that volume is increasing is the same as the rate at which bubble universes multiply. We assumed the minimum inflation rate that we think was needed to kick off our own universe. The scale factor, or radius of the universe, increased by a factor of at least 10 to the power of 26 in less than 10 to the power of negative 32 seconds. So how much did the volume increase over one full second at that rate?

Well, a scale factor or radius increase of 10 to the power of 26 means a volume increase of that cubed, so 10 to the power of 78. Every 10 to the power of negative 32 seconds, 1 cubic meter of volume becomes 10 to the 78 cubic meters, which is approximately the volume of our entire universe. And then in the next 10 to the negative 32 seconds, each of those 10 to the 78 new 1-meter cubes spawns just as many new entire universe-sized volumes. So we have 10 to the 78 squared, then 10 to the 78 cubed, etc. By the time we get to one full second, we''ve multiplied by 10 to the 78 10 to the 32 times. So our volume is 10 to the 78 to the power of 10 to the 32, or around 10 to the 10 to the 34. And our number of new bubble universes should multiply by that same insane factor each second. This gives us a ridiculously large number of universes, even if the probability of making one universe per unit volume is insanely low. The exponential nature of expansion guarantees this.

As soon as the inflating spacetime is big enough to make one universe, in the next second it should make 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 34 universes, and so on. If you got this right, congrats. We''ll list the winners as well as answer the extra credit question at the end of this video after the bit about the aliens. As crazy as eternal inflation sounds, it''s still fun to think about the consequences if all of this is true. Here''s another one: Do all of these bubble universes have the same laws of physics? Or could they be wildly different from each other? Based on standard ideas, they probably have the same number of dimensions as ours.')
,('87', '3', '2019-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Please assist the user with their request, ensuring you provide the best possible solution.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?



Prior Context:
equences if all of this is true. Here''s another one. Do all of these bubble universes have the same laws of physics? Or could they be wildly different from each other? Based on standard ideas, they probably have the same number of dimensions as ours.

Original:
Three space, one time, but their contents and their physics could be very different. For example, the cosmological constant, the strength of dark energy, could be very different. Remember that it was the high energy density of the inflaton field that drove inflation, and the loss of that energy density that ended inflation. But what if the inflaton field retained just a tiny bit of energy after its decay? That residual field might be what we observe as dark energy. It''s an open and contentious question as to why the current energy density of the vacuum should be so low without being exactly zero, given that it started out so large. It seems awfully lucky. If dark energy were much stronger, then our universe would have restarted its accelerating expansion too quickly for stars and galaxies and life to ever form. Here''s a possible explanation. What if different bubble universes can end up with different vacuum energies? Very low vacuum energies like ours might be extremely rare, but there are so many bubble universes that at least some of them will have low enough cosmological constants for life to form. Naturally, we would be in such a universe. This is an example of using the anthropic principle. We must exist in a universe capable of producing us, so if there are many universes, it''s natural we find ourselves in one finely tuned for life. People have also invoked the anthropic principle plus eternal inflation to explain a conundrum in string theory. As we''ve talked about before, modern string theory is difficult to pin down because there are countless possible minimum energy configurations of its six curled-up dimensions. More than 10 to the power of 500 possible vacuum states. Probably a lot more than that. The vast space of possible configurations of these compact dimensions is referred to as the string landscape. Each different configuration results in a different family of particles and also a different cosmological constant. We don''t know why our universe has the particular string vacuum state that it does, but it''s lucky it does because the resulting particles allow for things like complex chemistry. entered the anthropic principle once again. Eternal inflation gives us enough universes to easily populate the entire string landscape. All different vacuum states exist somewhere out there, and our universe necessarily has one that leads to life-friendly particles, as well as a decent cosmological constant.

', 'Three space, one time, but their contents and their physics could be very different. For example, the cosmological constant, the strength of dark energy, could be very different. Remember that it was the high energy density of the inflaton field that drove inflation, and the loss of that energy density that ended inflation. But what if the inflaton field retained just a tiny bit of energy after its decay? That residual field might be what we observe as dark energy. It''s an open and contentious question as to why the current energy density of the vacuum should be so low without being exactly zero, given that it started out so large. It seems awfully lucky.

If dark energy were much stronger, then our universe would have restarted its accelerating expansion too quickly for stars and galaxies and life to ever form. Here''s a possible explanation. What if different bubble universes can end up with different vacuum energies? Very low vacuum energies like ours might be extremely rare, but there are so many bubble universes that at least some of them will have low enough cosmological constants for life to form. Naturally, we would be in such a universe. This is an example of using the anthropic principle. We must exist in a universe capable of producing us, so if there are many universes, it''s natural we find ourselves in one finely tuned for life.

People have also invoked the anthropic principle plus eternal inflation to explain a conundrum in string theory. As we''ve talked about before, modern string theory is difficult to pin down because there are countless possible minimum energy configurations of its six curled-up dimensions. More than 10 to the power of 500 possible vacuum states. Probably a lot more than that. The vast space of possible configurations of these compact dimensions is referred to as the string landscape. Each different configuration results in a different family of particles and also a different cosmological constant. We don''t know why our universe has the particular string vacuum state that it does, but it''s lucky it does because the resulting particles allow for things like complex chemistry.

Enter the anthropic principle once again. Eternal inflation gives us enough universes to easily populate the entire string landscape. All different vacuum states exist somewhere out there, and our universe necessarily has one that leads to life-friendly particles, as well as a decent cosmological constant.')
,('87', '4', '2019-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Please assist the user with their request, ensuring you provide the best possible solution.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.



Prior Context:
on gives us enough universes to easily populate the entire string landscape. All different vacuum states exist somewhere out there, and our universe necessarily has one that leads to life-friendly particles, as well as a decent cosmological constant.

Original:
Some people aren''t comfortable with the anthropic principle. Those people will be even less comfortable with the next idea. This one is from Alan Guth, the guy who actually invented inflation in the first place. Here it is. Eternal inflation may solve the Fermi paradox. It may explain why we don''t see aliens. The argument goes like this. If the number of new universes increases by a factor of some impossibly large number every second, then the vast, vast majority of universes in existence were born recently. There are vastly more universes born one second after ours than were born at the same second as ours. Now imagine that there''s a set amount of time for the first intelligent life to form in any one of these universes. Let''s say 10 billion years. Pretend that it''s the same in all universes down to the second. Now the real timescale is going to be much more fuzzy than that, but it actually doesn''t really matter for this argument. So the first intelligence appears in our universe after exactly 10 billion years. We''ll call that moment second one. The same happens in the exact same second for universes that formed at the same time as ours. Now, one second later, second two, you might get some more intelligent lifeforms forming in those same universes, maybe just as many as formed in second one. But consider the wave of universes that formed one second after our own. These are now only just reaching that 10 billion year mark and producing their first intelligent lifeforms. And of course there are vastly more of those slightly younger universes. More than all of the atoms in all of the universes that formed one second earlier. So first civilizations in those younger universes will always outnumber the civilizations in older universes. The result is that at any one moment, almost all of the intelligent beings in the eternally inflating multiverse are in the youngest universes that have had time to form intelligent life. So if we imagine that we are a typical intelligent life form, then we''re most likely the most common type across the multiverse, which means we''re the first to appear in our universe. Ergo, you shouldn''t be surprised that we don''t see aliens. Guth calls this argument the Youngness Paradox. Now, let''s be clear. He doesn''t necessarily believe it to be right. He admits that while it seems logically sound, it does seem weird enough to force us to question the premises.

', 'Some people aren''t comfortable with the anthropic principle. Those people will be even less comfortable with the next idea. This one is from Alan Guth, the guy who actually invented inflation in the first place. Here it is: Eternal inflation may solve the Fermi paradox. It may explain why we don''t see aliens. The argument goes like this. If the number of new universes increases by a factor of some impossibly large number every second, then the vast, vast majority of universes in existence were born recently. There are vastly more universes born one second after ours than were born at the same second as ours.

Now imagine that there''s a set amount of time for the first intelligent life to form in any one of these universes. Let''s say 10 billion years. Pretend that it''s the same in all universes down to the second. Now the real timescale is going to be much more fuzzy than that, but it actually doesn''t really matter for this argument. So the first intelligence appears in our universe after exactly 10 billion years. We''ll call that moment second one. The same happens in the exact same second for universes that formed at the same time as ours.

Now, one second later, second two, you might get some more intelligent life forms forming in those same universes, maybe just as many as formed in second one. But consider the wave of universes that formed one second after our own. These are now only just reaching that 10 billion year mark and producing their first intelligent life forms. And of course there are vastly more of those slightly younger universes. More than all of the atoms in all of the universes that formed one second earlier. So first civilizations in those younger universes will always outnumber the civilizations in older universes.

The result is that at any one moment, almost all of the intelligent beings in the eternally inflating multiverse are in the youngest universes that have had time to form intelligent life. So if we imagine that we are a typical intelligent life form, then we''re most likely the most common type across the multiverse, which means we''re the first to appear in our universe. Ergo, you shouldn''t be surprised that we don''t see aliens.

Guth calls this argument the Youngness Paradox. Now, let''s be clear. He doesn''t necessarily believe it to be right. He admits that while it seems logically sound, it does seem weird enough to force us to question the premises.')
,('87', '5', '2019-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Please assist the user with their request, ensuring you provide the best possible solution.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?



Prior Context:
at we don''t see aliens. Guth calls this argument the Youngness Paradox. Now, let''s be clear. He doesn''t necessarily believe it to be right. He admits that while it seems logically sound, it does seem weird enough to force us to question the premises.

Original:
He proposes that there may be something off in the logic of weighing up probabilities over bubble universes. On the other hand, he also doesn''t rule this argument out. OK, the last thing I want to talk about is colliding universes. How often does this happen? Let''s start by answering the extra credit question. How close do bubbles need to be in order to collide? I won''t go through the detailed calculation because it takes a wee bit of calculus. Instead, I''ll provide a link to the answer in the description. But the too-long-didn''t-calculate is this. Remember that the edges of bubbled universes expand at the speed of light. If they form too far apart, then the intervening inflating spacetime will throw them apart faster than light speed before they can merge. Assuming the crazy rate of inflation in the question, you get that two bubble edges need to be closer than 6 by 10 to the power of negative 50 meters in order to reach each other. This is something like 15 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length. The implication is that universes don''t collide very often unless their rate of production is extremely high. And it might be very high, especially if the inflaton field is highly correlated from one point to the next, as in slow roll inflation. But it still should not be surprising that we don''t see any evidence of bubble collisions in our observable universe. If such collisions happened, they''re probably too far away for us to see. Okay, so we''ve come up with a lot of ridiculously large and small numbers and convincingly shown that none of this is easily testable. Where does that leave eternal inflation? Well, we probably shouldn''t just accept it. But at the same time, the current lack of proof doesn''t mean it''s wrong. Just that the universe, or multiverse, is playing hard to get. But here''s something that''s not hard to get. Spacetime swag. If your name is listed below, you are a winner of the challenge question, and you get your pick of a swag item from our merch store. Email us your choice, any relevant size info, and your mailing address, and we''ll get it out to you. Of course, you can always reward yourself for just listening to this answer by buying your own swag. Link in the description. It''s the best humorous science apparel in all of spacetime. Did you get enough spacetime today? No? Need more of that existential awe at the wonder and weirdness of the universe? got burning questions about the nature of reality. I may have what you need.

', 'He proposes that there may be something off in the logic of weighing up probabilities over bubble universes. On the other hand, he also doesn''t rule this argument out.

OK, the last thing I want to talk about is colliding universes. How often does this happen? Let''s start by answering the extra credit question. How close do bubbles need to be in order to collide?

I won''t go through the detailed calculation because it takes a wee bit of calculus. Instead, I''ll provide a link to the answer in the description. But the too-long-didn''t-calculate is this: 

Remember that the edges of bubbled universes expand at the speed of light. If they form too far apart, then the intervening inflating spacetime will throw them apart faster than light speed before they can merge. Assuming the crazy rate of inflation in the question, you get that two bubble edges need to be closer than 6 by 10 to the power of negative 50 meters in order to reach each other. This is something like 15 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length. 

The implication is that universes don''t collide very often unless their rate of production is extremely high. And it might be very high, especially if the inflaton field is highly correlated from one point to the next, as in slow roll inflation. But it still should not be surprising that we don''t see any evidence of bubble collisions in our observable universe. If such collisions happened, they''re probably too far away for us to see.

Okay, so we''ve come up with a lot of ridiculously large and small numbers and convincingly shown that none of this is easily testable. Where does that leave eternal inflation? Well, we probably shouldn''t just accept it. But at the same time, the current lack of proof doesn''t mean it''s wrong. Just that the universe, or multiverse, is playing hard to get.

But here''s something that''s not hard to get: Spacetime swag. If your name is listed below, you are a winner of the challenge question, and you get your pick of a swag item from our merch store. Email us your choice, any relevant size info, and your mailing address, and we''ll get it out to you. Of course, you can always reward yourself for just listening to this answer by buying your own swag. Link in the description. It''s the best humorous science apparel in all of spacetime.

Did you get enough spacetime today? No? Need more of that existential awe at the wonder and weirdness of the universe? Got burning questions about the nature of reality? I may have what you need.')
,('87', '6', '2019-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Please assist the user with their request, ensuring you provide the best possible solution.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.



Prior Context:
the best humorous science apparel in all of spacetime. Did you get enough spacetime today? No? Need more of that existential awe at the wonder and weirdness of the universe? got burning questions about the nature of reality. I may have what you need.

Original:
We just launched a spacetime discord for 24-7 conversations on all of the above. Now, it''s for our Patreon members, but don''t worry, it''s for the lowest of the lowest tiers, only $2 a month, to help support the show and to indulge that voracious curiosity of yours. I hope to see you over there. And on the subject of Patreon, I wanted to give a big big thanks to Alexander Tomas, one of our Big Bang supporters. Alexander has been traveling the bubble universes for many years, supporting local YouTube space shows where he finds them. Alexander, we''re glad you found us, and safe travels wherever they may lead. Now, last time we visited that old argument, is Pluto a planet? The question gets to the heart of what a scientific definition really is. And a number of you found that the International Astronomy Union''s new definition of planet, the one that excluded Pluto, is not very scientific at all. I thought it worth focusing on that for this comment response. A number of people in the comment section echoed these thoughts, but special props to Regolith on the spacetime discord, who''s a bonafide planetary scientist. I''m also echoing some of the thoughts of Alan Stern, lead scientist on the New Horizons mission to Pluto. Now, there are two main arguments. Firstly, that the IAU definition is arbitrary and ambiguous. And second, that it should have been planetary scientists that made this decision, not astronomers. I acknowledge the arbitrariness in the episode, but ambiguity is more of a concern. That''s something a scientific definition should never be. Here''s the IAU definition again. A planet is a sun-orbiting body massive enough to be round and to have cleared its orbit of debris. It''s that last bit, cleared its orbit, that excludes Pluto. This might be considered arbitrary because clearing the orbit doesn''t necessarily reflect a fundamental difference in the physical nature and formation process of that body. And that''s a problem for many planetary scientists. In fact, whether or not a body clears its orbit depends strongly on where in the solar system it forms. The further out, the more mass of a body needs to be to clear its orbit. If Earth formed at 100 times its current distance from the Sun, it wouldn''t have cleared its orbit, and so it wouldn''t be considered a planet. But if Jupiter was in the same location 100 times Earth''s orbit, it would have cleared its orbit.

', 'We just launched a spacetime Discord for 24/7 conversations on all of the above. Now, it''s for our Patreon members, but don''t worry, it''s for the lowest of the lowest tiers, only $2 a month, to help support the show and to indulge that voracious curiosity of yours. I hope to see you over there.

And on the subject of Patreon, I wanted to give a big, big thanks to Alexander Tomas, one of our Big Bang supporters. Alexander has been traveling the bubble universes for many years, supporting local YouTube space shows where he finds them. Alexander, we''re glad you found us, and safe travels wherever they may lead.

Now, last time we visited that old argument, is Pluto a planet? The question gets to the heart of what a scientific definition really is. And a number of you found that the International Astronomy Union''s new definition of planet, the one that excluded Pluto, is not very scientific at all. I thought it worth focusing on that for this comment response.

A number of people in the comment section echoed these thoughts, but special props to Regolith on the spacetime Discord, who''s a bona fide planetary scientist. I''m also echoing some of the thoughts of Alan Stern, lead scientist on the New Horizons mission to Pluto.

Now, there are two main arguments. Firstly, that the IAU definition is arbitrary and ambiguous. And second, that it should have been planetary scientists that made this decision, not astronomers. I acknowledge the arbitrariness in the episode, but ambiguity is more of a concern. That''s something a scientific definition should never be.

Here''s the IAU definition again. A planet is a sun-orbiting body massive enough to be round and to have cleared its orbit of debris. It''s that last bit, cleared its orbit, that excludes Pluto. This might be considered arbitrary because clearing the orbit doesn''t necessarily reflect a fundamental difference in the physical nature and formation process of that body. And that''s a problem for many planetary scientists.

In fact, whether or not a body clears its orbit depends strongly on where in the solar system it forms. The further out, the more mass of a body needs to be to clear its orbit. If Earth formed at 100 times its current distance from the Sun, it wouldn''t have cleared its orbit, and so it wouldn''t be considered a planet. But if Jupiter was in the same location 100 times Earth''s orbit, it would have cleared its orbit.')
,('87', '7', '2019-09-30', 'text_correction', 'Please assist the user with their request, ensuring you provide the best possible solution.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.



Prior Context:
ts orbit. If Earth formed at 100 times its current distance from the Sun, it wouldn''t have cleared its orbit, and so it wouldn''t be considered a planet. But if Jupiter was in the same location 100 times Earth''s orbit, it would have cleared its orbit.

Original:
So we end up with this somewhat complicated relationship between mass and the distance of the Sun that determines whether you get to be called a planet. And that relationship may not relate to any scientifically interesting properties of the body. So there''s your arbitrariness. But what about ambiguity? Within our solar system it''s clear enough which are planets and which aren''t by this definition. But what about around other stars? That brings us to the first part of the IAU definition. A planet has to be orbiting our sun. That''s right. Other stars don''t have planets. They have exoplanets. The word planet is reserved exclusively for the 8 bodies of our solar system. In fact, you need this combination of requirements to know absolutely whether something is a planet by this new definition. In general, the new definition of planet does avoid ambiguity, but at the cost of arbitrariness. And you might also say of scientific usefulness. Pluto aside, the new definition allows for two objects with extremely similar geophysical properties to be differently classed. For now, the new definition does make things clearer than they were before the definition was changed. But as our understanding grows, particularly of exoplanets, maybe we need to be very ready to change the definition again. And perhaps this time with more input from planetary scientists who, after all, are the literal experts on planets and the most frequent users of the term.

', 'So we end up with this somewhat complicated relationship between mass and the distance of the Sun that determines whether you get to be called a planet. And that relationship may not relate to any scientifically interesting properties of the body. So there''s your arbitrariness. But what about ambiguity? Within our solar system, it''s clear enough which are planets and which aren''t by this definition. But what about around other stars? That brings us to the first part of the IAU definition. A planet has to be orbiting our sun. That''s right. Other stars don''t have planets. They have exoplanets. The word planet is reserved exclusively for the 8 bodies of our solar system. In fact, you need this combination of requirements to know absolutely whether something is a planet by this new definition. In general, the new definition of a planet does avoid ambiguity, but at the cost of arbitrariness. And you might also say of scientific usefulness. Pluto aside, the new definition allows for two objects with extremely similar geophysical properties to be differently classed. For now, the new definition does make things clearer than they were before the definition was changed. But as our understanding grows, particularly of exoplanets, maybe we need to be very ready to change the definition again. And perhaps this time with more input from planetary scientists who, after all, are the literal experts on planets and the most frequent users of the term.')
,('102', '1', '2020-03-12', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
in ancient times, people beleived the earth was the center of the universe. this was known as the geocentric model.

Corrected:
In ancient times, people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This was known as the geocentric model.

Prior Context:

Original:
once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.

Corrected:
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.



Prior Context:


Original:
In 1784, Benjamin Franklin asks, where is the prince who can afford to so cover his country with troops for its defense as that 10,000 men descending from the clouds might not, in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief before a force could be brought to repel them? Dropping your troops onto the enemy positions behind the front lines would render defensive lines useless. Well, in 1940 this is no longer a fantasy, but in fact very much a reality. I''m Indy Neidell, this is a World War Two in real time special episode. Thanks to new inventions such as static line cords, the Soviet Union and Italy had been developing paratroop units. The Soviets showcased the possibilities of airborne combat in 1935 to an awestruck international audience. 1,000 troops parachute into the Ukrainian countryside and are quickly reinforced by 5,000 more from the ground. British then-Colonel Archie Wavell is present and describes his experience, saying, If I had not been an eyewitness to this event, I would never have believed that such an operation was possible. Minister of the Prussian Interior Hermann Göring is also present and cannot contain his enthusiasm. This isn''t that surprising. He was already dreaming about it in 1922, telling a friend, our whole future is in the air, and it is by air power that we are going to recapture the German Empire. To accomplish this, we will do three things. First, we will teach gliding as a sport to all our young men. Then we will build up commercial aviation. Finally, we will create the skeleton of a military air force. When the time comes, we will put all three together and the German Empire will be reborn. After witnessing the Soviet exercise, he wastes no time and transforms Prussian police units into parachute troops in January 1936. They are later to be called Fallschirmjäger, parachute hunters. Training facilities are set up at Stendal, not far from Berlin, and Germany begins training airborne troops that year. After eight weeks of light infantry training, recruits follow a 16-day parachute course. It is all intended to mold them into the elite of the elite. They consist exclusively of volunteers, but only one in four makes the cut. They are Germany''s finest. Among their commandments is, keep your eyes wide open, tune yourself to the topmost pitch, be nimble as a greyhound, as tough as leather, as hard as crump steel, and so you shall be the German warrior incarnate.

', 'In 1784, Benjamin Franklin asked, "Where is the prince who can afford to so cover his country with troops for its defense as that 10,000 men descending from the clouds might not, in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief before a force could be brought to repel them?" Dropping your troops onto the enemy positions behind the front lines would render defensive lines useless. Well, in 1940, this is no longer a fantasy, but in fact very much a reality.

I''m Indy Neidell, and this is a World War Two in real-time special episode. Thanks to new inventions such as static line cords, the Soviet Union and Italy had been developing paratroop units. The Soviets showcased the possibilities of airborne combat in 1935 to an awestruck international audience. 1,000 troops parachute into the Ukrainian countryside and are quickly reinforced by 5,000 more from the ground.

British then-Colonel Archie Wavell is present and describes his experience, saying, "If I had not been an eyewitness to this event, I would never have believed that such an operation was possible." Minister of the Prussian Interior Hermann Göring is also present and cannot contain his enthusiasm. This isn''t that surprising. He was already dreaming about it in 1922, telling a friend, "Our whole future is in the air, and it is by air power that we are going to recapture the German Empire. To accomplish this, we will do three things. First, we will teach gliding as a sport to all our young men. Then we will build up commercial aviation. Finally, we will create the skeleton of a military air force. When the time comes, we will put all three together, and the German Empire will be reborn."

After witnessing the Soviet exercise, he wastes no time and transforms Prussian police units into parachute troops in January 1936. They are later to be called Fallschirmjäger, parachute hunters. Training facilities are set up at Stendal, not far from Berlin, and Germany begins training airborne troops that year. After eight weeks of light infantry training, recruits follow a 16-day parachute course. It is all intended to mold them into the elite of the elite. They consist exclusively of volunteers, but only one in four makes the cut. They are Germany''s finest. Among their commandments is, "Keep your eyes wide open, tune yourself to the topmost pitch, be nimble as a greyhound, as tough as leather, as hard as crump steel, and so you shall be the German warrior incarnate."')
,('102', '2', '2020-03-12', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.



Prior Context:
es the cut. They are Germany''s finest. Among their commandments is, keep your eyes wide open, tune yourself to the topmost pitch, be nimble as a greyhound, as tough as leather, as hard as crump steel, and so you shall be the German warrior incarnate.

Original:
The 7th Flieger Division is established in 1938 as the first Fallschirmjäger Division to enter service. Now, a 22nd Air Landing Division was already formed in 1935, though, which uses the gliders that make up the Weimar German Air Force under the Versailles Treaty restrictions. The 22nd are the backbone of the Fallschirmjäger, intended to reinforce them once they are established. In 1938, the Fallschirmjäger are incorporated into the Luftwaffe under the command of Major General Kurt Student. Their purpose in action is simple- seize critical points in the enemy''s rear to block reserves or assist the main assault as light infantry. Equipped with light arms, machine guns, and light field artillery, Fallschirmjäger are mobile, flexible, and disruptive. They are vulnerable to armor or well-defended positions, but when used properly, they are deadly. Student''s work enjoys the personal support of Adolf Hitler himself. To Hitler, paratroopers represent precisely the kind of warfare he favors. Hitler also knows that the elite nature and unique uniforms of the paratroopers will appeal to the German public. It is no accident that the Fallschirmjäger are selected to lead the annual Wehrmacht parade in Berlin in 1939. They are not just a trophy division, though, and they are quickly put to the test. The first significant use of the Fallschirmjäger is to seize airfields during the invasion of Denmark and Norway in April 1940. The results are stunning. Used as light infantry and in combined arm tactics, the Fallschirmjäger prove to be an invaluable asset. A month later, they''re deployed in the Netherlands and Belgium, targeting Rotterdam, Moerdijk, and Dordrecht. While spectacularly successful in some places, other engagements do reveal severe flaws. They cannot sustain an attack on their own without proper reinforcements. This causes some units to be badly mauled when encountering well-fortified or unexpected concentrations of defenders, with casualty rates sometimes as high as 50%. There are also problems with their equipment. Their static lines, the line attached to the plane that means troops don''t need to pull a cord, are designed to accommodate jumps from as low as just 100 meters high. Though this gives them less exposure to enemy fire, the shock from the parachute opening can cause severe injuries. To make matters worse, the men jump with little more equipment than a handgun. Rifles and heavier weaponry are dropped separately, exposing the Jäger after landing.

', 'The 7th Flieger Division was established in 1938 as the first Fallschirmjäger Division to enter service. However, a 22nd Air Landing Division had already been formed in 1935, which used the gliders that made up the Weimar German Air Force under the Versailles Treaty restrictions. The 22nd Division served as the backbone of the Fallschirmjäger, intended to reinforce them once they were established. In 1938, the Fallschirmjäger were incorporated into the Luftwaffe under the command of Major General Kurt Student.

Their purpose in action was simple: to seize critical points in the enemy''s rear to block reserves or assist the main assault as light infantry. Equipped with light arms, machine guns, and light field artillery, Fallschirmjäger were mobile, flexible, and disruptive. They were vulnerable to armor or well-defended positions, but when used properly, they were deadly. Student''s work enjoyed the personal support of Adolf Hitler himself. To Hitler, paratroopers represented precisely the kind of warfare he favored. Hitler also knew that the elite nature and unique uniforms of the paratroopers would appeal to the German public. It was no accident that the Fallschirmjäger were selected to lead the annual Wehrmacht parade in Berlin in 1939.

However, the Fallschirmjäger were not just a trophy division, and they were quickly put to the test. The first significant use of the Fallschirmjäger was to seize airfields during the invasion of Denmark and Norway in April 1940. The results were stunning. Used as light infantry and in combined arm tactics, the Fallschirmjäger proved to be an invaluable asset. A month later, they were deployed in the Netherlands and Belgium, targeting Rotterdam, Moerdijk, and Dordrecht. While they were spectacularly successful in some places, other engagements revealed severe flaws. They could not sustain an attack on their own without proper reinforcements, leading to some units being badly mauled when encountering well-fortified or unexpected concentrations of defenders, with casualty rates sometimes as high as 50%.

Additionally, there were problems with their equipment. Their static lines, the lines attached to the plane that allowed troops to jump without pulling a cord, were designed to accommodate jumps from as low as just 100 meters high. Although this gave them less exposure to enemy fire, the shock from the parachute opening could cause severe injuries. To make matters worse, the men jumped with little more equipment than a handgun. Rifles and heavier weaponry were dropped separately, leaving the Jäger exposed after landing.')
,('102', '3', '2020-03-12', 'text_correction', 'A user will present you with content. Scan for any grammatical errors and correct them without altering the meaning or context.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.



Prior Context:
posure to enemy fire, the shock from the parachute opening can cause severe injuries. To make matters worse, the men jump with little more equipment than a handgun. Rifles and heavier weaponry are dropped separately, exposing the Jäger after landing.

Original:
Blinded by the successes, though, the German High Command fails to take note of the flaws. And one stunning battlefield success takes place in Belgium at Eben Emael, the largest fortress in the world. It is considered impenetrable, impregnable, but it takes fewer than 100 Fallschirmjäger engineers to capture it. At 0500 the Jäger drop down. Armed with handguns and small explosives, they secure the crossing of the Albert Canal within 24 hours. Their amazing victory allows the German panzers to roll into Belgium towards France. Historians will later marvel at this centerpiece of the German advance on Western Europe. The Allies are in a state of shock and Fallschirmjäger instantly become national heroes back home in Germany. They turn up in magazines, books, even children''s games, and the newsreels cannot get enough of their adventures, and nor can Adolf Hitler, who is eager to see them succeed again. But some clouds are slowly forming. A year after their first successes, the Germans will attempt to deploy their celebrated Fallschirmjäger once more. In fact, they will perform the first air-phibious invasion ever to try and capture the island of Crete, with an initial wave consisting exclusively of airborne landings. The facts that the troops need a flawless supply line and reliable reinforcements are not taken into account by the German leadership, and the whole airborne operation ends up a catastrophe with 33% losses, though the Germans do soon take the island. Losses are so high, in fact, that Hitler will only after this deploy Fallschirmjäger as elite light infantry units on land. But while the German airborne actions are spectacular, dramatic, and short-lived, other nations are watching. The Americans and the British are putting together their very own airborne units, and they are willing to pay the high price in lives for the tactical advantage the airborne units provide. But that is a story for another time. If you would like to learn more about the invasion of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France in May 1940, you can click right here for that. Please support us on Patreon so that we can continue making specials just like this one. You can do that at patreon.com or timeghost.tv. Don''t forget to subscribe and ring that little bell you see somewhere around. See you next time.

', 'Blinded by the successes, though, the German High Command fails to take note of the flaws. And one stunning battlefield success takes place in Belgium at Eben Emael, the largest fortress in the world. It is considered impenetrable, impregnable, but it takes fewer than 100 Fallschirmjäger engineers to capture it. At 0500 the Jäger drop down. Armed with handguns and small explosives, they secure the crossing of the Albert Canal within 24 hours. Their amazing victory allows the German panzers to roll into Belgium towards France. Historians will later marvel at this centerpiece of the German advance on Western Europe. The Allies are in a state of shock and Fallschirmjäger instantly become national heroes back home in Germany. They turn up in magazines, books, even children''s games, and the newsreels cannot get enough of their adventures, and nor can Adolf Hitler, who is eager to see them succeed again. But some clouds are slowly forming. A year after their first successes, the Germans will attempt to deploy their celebrated Fallschirmjäger once more. In fact, they will perform the first air-phibious invasion ever to try and capture the island of Crete, with an initial wave consisting exclusively of airborne landings. The facts that the troops need a flawless supply line and reliable reinforcements are not taken into account by the German leadership, and the whole airborne operation ends up a catastrophe with 33% losses, though the Germans do soon take the island. Losses are so high, in fact, that Hitler will only after this deploy Fallschirmjäger as elite light infantry units on land. But while the German airborne actions are spectacular, dramatic, and short-lived, other nations are watching. The Americans and the British are putting together their very own airborne units, and they are willing to pay the high price in lives for the tactical advantage the airborne units provide. But that is a story for another time. If you would like to learn more about the invasion of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France in May 1940, you can click right here for that. Please support us on Patreon so that we can continue making specials just like this one. You can do that at patreon.com or timeghost.tv. Don''t forget to subscribe and ring that little bell you see somewhere around. See you next time.')
,('111', '1', '2023-06-30', 'text_correction', 'Please assist the user with their request, ensuring you provide the best possible solution.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.

Prior Context:

Original:
once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.

Corrected:
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.Prior Context:

Original:
In the beggining, there was only chaos and void. then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Corrected:
In the beginning, there was only chaos and void. Then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
Well, howdy there internet people. It''s Beau again. So today we are going to talk about Trump and Smith and the little game they are playing because at this point in time it, well it does appear that Smith is holding at least a pair of Queens. Reporting now suggests that Mike Ronan, who was a campaign official for Trump in 2020, has entered into a proper agreement with the feds. Okay, so this is not a person that has a high public profile, but this is a person that many believe had a lot of access when it comes to alternate electors and stuff of that. He also is reported or believed, I should say, believed to have worked closely with Rudy Giuliani. In fact, during the House committee, during those hearings, he was asked specifically about his conversations with Giuliani after the election. He pled the fifth. So, something else to know is that this proffer agreement was entered into reportedly once the Department of Justice was like, hey, by the way, you''re going to talk to the grand jury. And it''s also worth noting that a while back they took his phone. Okay, so all of this would be related to the election interference, January 6th, maybe the fundraising stuff. Keep in mind that if the Department of Justice wanted to, all three of those could be completely separate cases. The walls that have protected Trump for so long, there''s a lot of cracks in them right now. The cracks are starting to show. I am of the opinion that Smith actually has another queen up his sleeve that hasn''t been publicly confirmed yet. the rate at which this information is now coming out leads me to believe that by the time this actually goes for, it reaches the point where they''re actually seeking the indictment, it''s going to have boxes of evidence. So much so that Smith might have to store some of them in his bathroom. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.

', 'Well, howdy there internet people. It''s Beau again. So today we are going to talk about Trump and Smith and the little game they are playing because at this point in time, it, well, it does appear that Smith is holding at least a pair of Queens. Reporting now suggests that Mike Ronan, who was a campaign official for Trump in 2020, has entered into a proffer agreement with the feds. Okay, so this is not a person that has a high public profile, but this is a person that many believe had a lot of access when it comes to alternate electors and stuff like that. He also is reported or believed, I should say, believed to have worked closely with Rudy Giuliani. In fact, during the House committee hearings, he was asked specifically about his conversations with Giuliani after the election. He pled the fifth. So, something else to know is that this proffer agreement was entered into reportedly once the Department of Justice was like, hey, by the way, you''re going to talk to the grand jury. And it''s also worth noting that a while back they took his phone. Okay, so all of this would be related to the election interference, January 6th, maybe the fundraising stuff. Keep in mind that if the Department of Justice wanted to, all three of those could be completely separate cases. The walls that have protected Trump for so long, there''s a lot of cracks in them right now. The cracks are starting to show. I am of the opinion that Smith actually has another queen up his sleeve that hasn''t been publicly confirmed yet. The rate at which this information is now coming out leads me to believe that by the time this actually goes for, it reaches the point where they''re actually seeking the indictment, it''s going to have boxes of evidence. So much so that Smith might have to store some of them in his bathroom. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.')
,('113', '1', '2023-06-21', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
in ancient times, people beleived the earth was the center of the universe. this was known as the geocentric model.

Corrected:
In ancient times, people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This was known as the geocentric model.

Prior Context:

Original:
once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.

Corrected:
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.



Prior Context:


Original:
Well howdy there internet people, it''s Beau again. So today we''re going to talk about Eastman out there in California and what''s going on out there. Eastman is the attorney, at least for the time being, who assisted the former president during his attempt to alter the outcome of the 2020 election. Out in California he is going through proceedings, kind of a trial and he is looking at 11 disciplinary charges that could result in the loss of his license. He could be disbarred. These proceedings produce a recommendation. That recommendation would then go to the California Supreme Court who gets to make the final determination, if I understand the process correctly. Eastman''s activities were described as, "...all of his misconduct was done with one singular purpose, to obstruct the electoral count on January 6th and stop Vice President Pence from certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the election. He was fully aware in real time that his plan was damaging the nation." Pretty serious allegations against Eastman. Now, this proceeding probably going to last about a week. Probably going to last about a week because they intend on calling a whole bunch of people as witnesses. While most of the country really couldn''t care about Eastman, the testimony that occurs during these proceedings, I can assure you those people investigating January 6th, those people in Georgia, related to any potential prosecution of Trump there, they are paying very close attention. Odds are there are going to be things said under oath during these proceedings that will come up again later. So the proceedings themselves, I know a whole lot of people in the legal profession who definitely believe these proceedings need to occur, just for ethical reasons. And I''m trying really hard not to make a lawyer joke when it comes to ethics and all of that, but I mean every attorney I know, it''s like this guy needs to not be a lawyer anymore. The general consensus among those that I know is that his activities weren''t really grounded in the law. He was floating ideas that he knew were false just to kind of prolong and obstruct. And that seems to be the core of the allegation out there. he has the proceedings to go through and the Supreme Court out there will make the final determination. The reason it''s important to note, this is one of those you will see this material again type of things. I am almost positive that something said during these proceedings will end up labeled as an exhibit later.

', 'Well, howdy there, internet people. It''s Beau again. So today we''re going to talk about Eastman out there in California and what''s going on out there. Eastman is the attorney, at least for the time being, who assisted the former president during his attempt to alter the outcome of the 2020 election. Out in California, he is going through proceedings, kind of a trial, and he is looking at 11 disciplinary charges that could result in the loss of his license. He could be disbarred.

These proceedings produce a recommendation. That recommendation would then go to the California Supreme Court, who gets to make the final determination, if I understand the process correctly. Eastman''s activities were described as, "...all of his misconduct was done with one singular purpose, to obstruct the electoral count on January 6th and stop Vice President Pence from certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the election. He was fully aware in real time that his plan was damaging the nation."

Pretty serious allegations against Eastman. Now, this proceeding probably going to last about a week. Probably going to last about a week because they intend on calling a whole bunch of people as witnesses. While most of the country really couldn''t care about Eastman, the testimony that occurs during these proceedings, I can assure you those people investigating January 6th, those people in Georgia, related to any potential prosecution of Trump there, they are paying very close attention.

Odds are there are going to be things said under oath during these proceedings that will come up again later. So the proceedings themselves, I know a whole lot of people in the legal profession who definitely believe these proceedings need to occur, just for ethical reasons. And I''m trying really hard not to make a lawyer joke when it comes to ethics and all of that, but I mean every attorney I know, it''s like this guy needs to not be a lawyer anymore. The general consensus among those that I know is that his activities weren''t really grounded in the law. He was floating ideas that he knew were false just to kind of prolong and obstruct. And that seems to be the core of the allegation out there. He has the proceedings to go through and the Supreme Court out there will make the final determination.

The reason it''s important to note, this is one of those you will see this material again type of things. I am almost positive that something said during these proceedings will end up labeled as an exhibit later.')
,('113', '2', '2023-06-21', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.



Prior Context:
ere will make the final determination. The reason it''s important to note, this is one of those you will see this material again type of things. I am almost positive that something said during these proceedings will end up labeled as an exhibit later.

Original:
Some of the witnesses that Eastman plans on calling are people who would have direct knowledge of any potential plan. The first day of the proceedings did not go particularly well for Eastman. The judge does not seem willing to entertain a lot of Eastman''s experts and general style even. But this is a lot like the Meadows thing where the information that Eastman possesses is probably critical to the prosecution in Georgia and anything related to January 6th. Any potential charges coming out of Georgia or the January 6th investigation, they might really like to have Eastman. So any testimony here might lead to Eastman being leaned on pretty heavily by by the federal government trying to get him to cooperate and provide more detailed testimony to them in relation to people that might have been higher up and put context to some of the events and actions. So even though this doesn''t seem to be important, it probably will be later. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.

', 'Some of the witnesses that Eastman plans on calling are people who would have direct knowledge of any potential plan. The first day of the proceedings did not go particularly well for Eastman. The judge does not seem willing to entertain a lot of Eastman''s experts and general style even. But this is a lot like the Meadows thing where the information that Eastman possesses is probably critical to the prosecution in Georgia and anything related to January 6th. Any potential charges coming out of Georgia or the January 6th investigation, they might really like to have Eastman. So any testimony here might lead to Eastman being leaned on pretty heavily by the federal government trying to get him to cooperate and provide more detailed testimony to them in relation to people that might have been higher up and put context to some of the events and actions. So even though this doesn''t seem to be important, it probably will be later. Anyway, it''s just a thought. Y''all have a good day.')
,('114', '1', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.

Corrected:
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.

Prior Context:

Original:
we are living in unprecedented times. Never before have we faced such challenges and opportunities.

Corrected:
We are living in unprecedented times. Never before have we faced such challenges and opportunities.



Prior Context:


Original:
August 26, 1944 This week comes the liberation of Paris. Wait! Okay, that does happen this week, yeah, but something else does that is way, way more important to the course of the war. A real game changer. I''ll get there in a minute. I''m Indy Neidell. This is World War Two. Last week, the battlefronts in the north of the Eastern Front settled down after a failed German counterattack, though the Soviets have reached the East Prussian border. The Allies invaded France for a second time, now along the south coast, and met little resistance, and that still-going first invasion devastated the enemy near Falaise-Argentin, and the Allies closed in on the Seine and Paris. In Paris came a partisan uprising, and in German-occupied Warsaw, the Polish Uprising continued as well. as it does this week. Stalin simply recorded an unpalatable truth when on the 22nd of August he stated somewhat raspingly that, "...from the military point of view, the situation which keeps German attention riveted to Warsaw is highly unfavorable both to the Red Army and to the Poles." But by that time, he had also formally and fiercely disassociated himself and the Soviet command from the Warsaw Adventure, thus consigning the Polish insurgents to inevitable death and inescapable destruction. Stalin has more to say, actually, even calling the leaders of the uprising power-hungry criminals. US President Franklin Roosevelt says the 24th that without being able to use Soviet airfields, which was rejected last week, he can''t do much anything in the way of supplying the Poles. And today tells Winston Churchill that sending another joint message to Stalin is not good for long-term wartime prospects. But if Churchill wants to intervene, then, you know, go ahead. Okay, here''s a general summary of where the Eastern Front stands as this week begins. The defeat of AG Center, the seizure of vital bridgeheads on the western bank of the Vistula, and the advance to the outskirts of Warsaw, the result of the giant offensive waged by five Soviet fronts, pushed the Soviet armies as much as 350 miles along the road to Berlin. Berlin was now less than 400 miles away. Two out of the four major German concentrations, Army Group Center and North Ukraine were fiercely mauled in the battles, which sucked in more than 6 million men on both sides and employed 85,000 guns and over 11,000 tanks or assault guns, supported by over 10,000 aircraft.

', 'August 26, 1944. This week comes the liberation of Paris. Wait! Okay, that does happen this week, yeah, but something else does that is way, way more important to the course of the war. A real game changer. I''ll get there in a minute. I''m Indy Neidell. This is World War Two. Last week, the battlefronts in the north of the Eastern Front settled down after a failed German counterattack, though the Soviets have reached the East Prussian border. The Allies invaded France for a second time, now along the south coast, and met little resistance, and that still-going first invasion devastated the enemy near Falaise-Argentin, and the Allies closed in on the Seine and Paris. In Paris came a partisan uprising, and in German-occupied Warsaw, the Polish Uprising continued as well, as it does this week.

Stalin simply recorded an unpalatable truth when on the 22nd of August he stated somewhat raspingly that, "...from the military point of view, the situation which keeps German attention riveted to Warsaw is highly unfavorable both to the Red Army and to the Poles." But by that time, he had also formally and fiercely disassociated himself and the Soviet command from the Warsaw Adventure, thus consigning the Polish insurgents to inevitable death and inescapable destruction. Stalin has more to say, actually, even calling the leaders of the uprising power-hungry criminals.

US President Franklin Roosevelt says on the 24th that without being able to use Soviet airfields, which was rejected last week, he can''t do much anything in the way of supplying the Poles. And today tells Winston Churchill that sending another joint message to Stalin is not good for long-term wartime prospects. But if Churchill wants to intervene, then, you know, go ahead.

Okay, here''s a general summary of where the Eastern Front stands as this week begins. The defeat of AG Center, the seizure of vital bridgeheads on the western bank of the Vistula, and the advance to the outskirts of Warsaw, the result of the giant offensive waged by five Soviet fronts, pushed the Soviet armies as much as 350 miles along the road to Berlin. Berlin was now less than 400 miles away. Two out of the four major German concentrations, Army Group Center and North Ukraine, were fiercely mauled in the battles, which sucked in more than 6 million men on both sides and employed 85,000 guns and over 11,000 tanks or assault guns, supported by over 10,000 aircraft.')
,('114', '2', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.



Prior Context:
r German concentrations, Army Group Center and North Ukraine were fiercely mauled in the battles, which sucked in more than 6 million men on both sides and employed 85,000 guns and over 11,000 tanks or assault guns, supported by over 10,000 aircraft.

Original:
Of the 70 German divisions facing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Belorussian and 1st Baltic Fronts, 30 were obliterated from the German order of battle and 30 more immolated in Konev''s with 1st Ukrainian Front to the Vistula. German formations were encircled five times. The Soviet Front advanced to run from the west of Yelgava to Shauryai, Suvalki, Ostrovenka, Pulutsk, on to the Warsaw suburb of Praga, to Magnushev, Sandomierz, Drohobych, and finally to the junction with 2nd Ukrainian Front at Chernovitsy, the line to which the offensive finally subsided in August. At the end of the month, the Stavka ordered all five fronts onto the defensive. We saw last week that the Soviet fronts further north are now regrouping and planning for new offensives. But what about 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian fronts to the south? Well, this week they invade Romania. Yep, on the 20th with two big offensives near Iasi and Terespol. 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian fronts are hitting 3rd and 4th Romanian and German 6th armies. Rodion Malinovsky''s 3rd Ukrainian Front''s preliminary barrage does heavy damage, then Soviet 27th and 52nd armies drive 15km into the enemy defenses along a 25km front. The armor comes in at noon and hits the 3rd defense line. By day''s end, 5 divisions have been destroyed, the Romanian troops are crumbling, and there is nothing the Germans can do about it. Fyodor Tolbukhin''s 4th Ukrainian Front also breaks through the 20th, taking the major junks in Kaushani. The 21st, Malinovsky commits more force. The Romanians between Iasi and Targu Frumos have collapsed, and Soviet troops are heading down the Prut Valley. The armor has advanced 80km, it''s heading south, and the German forces are being flanked from both east and west. Tolbukhin''s forces also break through, the enemy disintegrates before them, and his guys are soon crossing the Dniester in several places. On the 22nd, Jassy is abandoned by the Axis. German 6th Army wants to try and save itself, but Tolbukhin''s 2 mechanized corps hit the rear of 3 full corps from 6th Army. They actually lose touch with the whole Army Group Dumitrescu. The Axis cannot save themselves now by withdrawal. They are 80 km from the Prut, and the Soviet armor is but 30. Naval infantry and the Danube Flotilla are busy taking the Dniester estuary with minimal resistance. After that, Soviet 46th Army swings north and northwest around the Romanians and into the rear of Romanian 3rd Army.

', 'Of the 70 German divisions facing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Belorussian and 1st Baltic Fronts, 30 were obliterated from the German order of battle and 30 more annihilated in Konev''s offensive with 1st Ukrainian Front to the Vistula. German formations were encircled five times. The Soviet Front advanced to run from the west of Yelgava to Shauryai, Suvalki, Ostrovenka, Pulutsk, on to the Warsaw suburb of Praga, to Magnushev, Sandomierz, Drohobych, and finally to the junction with 2nd Ukrainian Front at Chernovitsy, the line to which the offensive finally subsided in August. At the end of the month, the Stavka ordered all five fronts onto the defensive. We saw last week that the Soviet fronts further north are now regrouping and planning for new offensives. But what about 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian fronts to the south? Well, this week they invade Romania. Yep, on the 20th with two big offensives near Iasi and Terespol. 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian fronts are hitting 3rd and 4th Romanian and German 6th armies. Rodion Malinovsky''s 3rd Ukrainian Front''s preliminary barrage does heavy damage, then Soviet 27th and 52nd armies drive 15km into the enemy defenses along a 25km front. The armor comes in at noon and hits the 3rd defense line. By day''s end, 5 divisions have been destroyed, the Romanian troops are crumbling, and there is nothing the Germans can do about it. Fyodor Tolbukhin''s 4th Ukrainian Front also breaks through on the 20th, taking major chunks in Kaushani. On the 21st, Malinovsky commits more force. The Romanians between Iasi and Targu Frumos have collapsed, and Soviet troops are heading down the Prut Valley. The armor has advanced 80km, it''s heading south, and the German forces are being flanked from both east and west. Tolbukhin''s forces also break through, the enemy disintegrates before them, and his troops are soon crossing the Dniester in several places. On the 22nd, Jassy is abandoned by the Axis. German 6th Army wants to try and save itself, but Tolbukhin''s 2 mechanized corps hit the rear of 3 full corps from 6th Army. They actually lose touch with the whole Army Group Dumitrescu. The Axis cannot save themselves now by withdrawal. They are 80 km from the Prut, and the Soviet armor is only 30 km away. Naval infantry and the Danube Flotilla are busy taking the Dniester estuary with minimal resistance. After that, Soviet 46th Army swings north and northwest around the Romanians and into the rear of Romanian 3rd Army.')
,('114', '3', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.



Prior Context:
and the Soviet armor is but 30. Naval infantry and the Danube Flotilla are busy taking the Dniester estuary with minimal resistance. After that, Soviet 46th Army swings north and northwest around the Romanians and into the rear of Romanian 3rd Army.

Original:
And even while that army is almost surrounded, German 6th Army begins disintegrating. On the 23rd, the two Soviet fronts link up and some 12 divisions of 6th Army are cut off. Bender is cleared by the Soviets. But about that day… 23 August 1944 proved to be one of the decisive days of the entire war. The fate of an entire German army group hung in the balance. That alone, however, could not make one single day so momentous. What changed the fortunes of Germany''s entire southeastern theater was the coup carried out that day in Bucharest, when King Michael had the Antonescu brothers arrested and Romania ceased to fight alongside Germany. Yep, Romania has left the Axis powers, and that is going to have effects far beyond a single army group. The two Romanian armies lay down their arms, and with German 6th Army being strangled, Southern Bessarabia, the Danube, Carpathians, it is all open to the Soviets. Who is going to stop them? The roads into Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria are open. The road to Bulgaria, the road to Yugoslavia, open, all because of the coup. It was actually scheduled for the 26th, but the unfolding disaster in the field hastens the events in Bucharest. The King, only 22 years old, establishes a new government with the non-political General Konstantin Sanitescu at the helm. The King''s representatives in Cairo sign an armistice and that evening he speaks to the whole world over the radio and tells them the story. Hitler is a wee bit surprised by all of this, to put it mildly. German command still hopes to pull back to a defense line that covers the Pleshti oil fields- Germany''s main source of natural oil is Romania, though they make a lot of synthetic oil- and to take control of Bucharest. In King Michael''s radio address, he also says Romania will join the United Nations and fight against Germany. He also denounces the 1940 Treaty of Vienna, which gave part of Transylvania to Hungary, which could be seen as declaring war on Hungary. On the 24th, there is heavy fighting in Bucharest, though 6,000 German troops marching there don''t get past the suburbs, but 150 German bombers do hit the city, targeting the palace and the government buildings. Meanwhile, the Soviet fronts are still advancing. Kizhenev Falls. Army Group South Ukraine has been completely shattered. It is a catastrophe. The Soviets have completed one encirclement ring and are working on the second one 80km out, with 18 German divisions trapped inside.

', 'And even while that army is almost surrounded, German 6th Army begins disintegrating. On the 23rd, the two Soviet fronts link up and some 12 divisions of 6th Army are cut off. Bender is cleared by the Soviets. But about that day… 23 August 1944 proved to be one of the decisive days of the entire war. The fate of an entire German army group hung in the balance. That alone, however, could not make one single day so momentous. What changed the fortunes of Germany''s entire southeastern theater was the coup carried out that day in Bucharest, when King Michael had the Antonescu brothers arrested and Romania ceased to fight alongside Germany. Yep, Romania has left the Axis powers, and that is going to have effects far beyond a single army group. The two Romanian armies lay down their arms, and with German 6th Army being strangled, Southern Bessarabia, the Danube, Carpathians, it is all open to the Soviets. Who is going to stop them? The roads into Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria are open. The road to Bulgaria, the road to Yugoslavia, open, all because of the coup. It was actually scheduled for the 26th, but the unfolding disaster in the field hastens the events in Bucharest. The King, only 22 years old, establishes a new government with the non-political General Konstantin Sanitescu at the helm. The King''s representatives in Cairo sign an armistice and that evening he speaks to the whole world over the radio and tells them the story. Hitler is a wee bit surprised by all of this, to put it mildly. German command still hopes to pull back to a defense line that covers the Pleshti oil fields- Germany''s main source of natural oil is Romania, though they make a lot of synthetic oil- and to take control of Bucharest. In King Michael''s radio address, he also says Romania will join the United Nations and fight against Germany. He also denounces the 1940 Treaty of Vienna, which gave part of Transylvania to Hungary, which could be seen as declaring war on Hungary. On the 24th, there is heavy fighting in Bucharest, though 6,000 German troops marching there don''t get past the suburbs, but 150 German bombers do hit the city, targeting the palace and the government buildings. Meanwhile, the Soviet fronts are still advancing. Kizhenev Falls. Army Group South Ukraine has been completely shattered. It is a catastrophe. The Soviets have completed one encirclement ring and are working on the second one 80km out, with 18 German divisions trapped inside.')
,('114', '4', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.



Prior Context:
ts are still advancing. Kizhenev Falls. Army Group South Ukraine has been completely shattered. It is a catastrophe. The Soviets have completed one encirclement ring and are working on the second one 80km out, with 18 German divisions trapped inside.

Original:
And the German attacks on Bucharest have not created panic, they have not cowed the population, rather they cause Romanian soldiers to attack the Wehrmacht. Romania formally declares war on Germany. Today, as the week ends, the Soviets reach the Danube east of Galicia. Their main attacks are to the west between it and Focsani. Tolbukhin''s forces take Kagul and the ring around Sixth Army is closed. Over 100,000 Germans have been killed on this front this week and a similar number taken prisoner. Also, maybe some or many of those trapped German troops will break out and leave Romania. But they''re damn sure not going to Bulgaria, because today on the 26th, the Bulgarian government tells the Soviet Union that from now on, Bulgaria is strictly neutral. German troops crossing into Bulgaria will be disarmed, and the Germans have been asked to remove those already there. We''ll soon see what the Soviets think about Bulgarian neutrality, since they are currently cruising for the Danube. But there are a bunch of trapped Germans who may escape to fight another day over on the Western Front. Okay, the crushing of the German forces in the Falaise Pocket and beyond by August 20th brought an effective end to German resistance in Normandy, but it did not end the Normandy campaign. After Falaise, the outcome was not in doubt, but the retreating Germans had now to be pursued, and the pressure kept up until the enemy was finally defeated and their army groups ground to dust. This desirable process was brought to a halt by the old problem- supply. It''s not just ammunition and fuel, some of the Allied armies are running out of men. The numbers of killed and wounded in Normandy have been high. 2nd Canadian Infantry Division''s 9 battalions should have a total of 7,389 men. but they are short 1900, that''s over a quarter. The American advance on Saint-Lô cost 40,000 casualties, and 90% of that was infantry, but the War Office had planned for 48% of casualties to be infantry, so that is an issue as well. The US has plenty more men still at this point, but the growing number adds hassles to the supply chain. Still, on the 20th, George Patton''s troops take crossings of the Seine at Mont Cassicourt, 50km west of Paris. Beyond Paris, 20th Corps units enter Fontainebleau. That same day, Philippe Piton, Vichy French head of state, is arrested by the Germans for refusing to go to an area safe from the Allied advance.

', 'And the German attacks on Bucharest have not created panic. They have not cowed the population. Rather, they cause Romanian soldiers to attack the Wehrmacht. Romania formally declares war on Germany. Today, as the week ends, the Soviets reach the Danube east of Galicia. Their main attacks are to the west between it and Focsani. Tolbukhin''s forces take Kagul, and the ring around the Sixth Army is closed. Over 100,000 Germans have been killed on this front this week, and a similar number taken prisoner. Also, maybe some or many of those trapped German troops will break out and leave Romania. But they''re damn sure not going to Bulgaria because today, on the 26th, the Bulgarian government tells the Soviet Union that from now on, Bulgaria is strictly neutral. German troops crossing into Bulgaria will be disarmed, and the Germans have been asked to remove those already there. We''ll soon see what the Soviets think about Bulgarian neutrality since they are currently cruising for the Danube. But there are a bunch of trapped Germans who may escape to fight another day over on the Western Front.

Okay, the crushing of the German forces in the Falaise Pocket and beyond by August 20th brought an effective end to German resistance in Normandy, but it did not end the Normandy campaign. After Falaise, the outcome was not in doubt, but the retreating Germans had now to be pursued, and the pressure kept up until the enemy was finally defeated and their army groups ground to dust. This desirable process was brought to a halt by the old problem: supply. It''s not just ammunition and fuel; some of the Allied armies are running out of men. The numbers of killed and wounded in Normandy have been high. 2nd Canadian Infantry Division''s 9 battalions should have a total of 7,389 men, but they are short 1,900. That''s over a quarter. The American advance on Saint-Lô cost 40,000 casualties, and 90% of that was infantry, but the War Office had planned for 48% of casualties to be infantry, so that is an issue as well. The US has plenty more men still at this point, but the growing number adds hassles to the supply chain. Still, on the 20th, George Patton''s troops take crossings of the Seine at Mont Cassicourt, 50km west of Paris. Beyond Paris, 20th Corps units enter Fontainebleau. That same day, Philippe Piton, Vichy French head of state, is arrested by the Germans for refusing to go to an area safe from the Allied advance.')
,('114', '5', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.



Prior Context:
of the Seine at Mont Cassicourt, 50km west of Paris. Beyond Paris, 20th Corps units enter Fontainebleau. That same day, Philippe Piton, Vichy French head of state, is arrested by the Germans for refusing to go to an area safe from the Allied advance.

Original:
There are more than 7,000 armed members of the resistance in Paris by then, and around 6,000 German troops there. The 21st comes the last efforts of trapped German soldiers to break out of the Falaise pocket. In the Falaise battles, 50,000 Germans have been taken prisoner and 10,000 killed, but some 50,000 have escaped. By this day, all Allied armies here are advancing rapidly to the northeast, chasing the broken Germans. They are still behind the Operation Overlord timetable at this point, but the speed of the advance might correct that if this continues. Now, Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower wants the Americans to head east towards Nancy and the Saar, and the British and Canadians to head north for Antwerp and the Rhine, but Allied Ground Forces Commander Bernard Montgomery wants both the British and American army groups to head north and not be split. What transpires is Canadian First Army is to wheel at Rouen, head to the channel at Le Havre and then go up the channel. British 2nd Army is to cross the Seine and head for the Somme, and US 12th Army Group gathers south and southwest of Paris until ordered to enter the city. Wrecking the city and infantry street battles are not on the agenda, although on the 22nd, Adolf Hitler issues the first of several orders to Dietrich von Holtitz, military governor of Paris, to destroy the city. By the 23rd, resistance forces have largely freed Paris. On the 24th, There is fighting in the city again, though, as the Germans make a final effort. Philippe Leclerc leads the French to the outskirts of the city. Colonel Pierre Billotte enters the city with a small armored force from the Porte d''Orléans. They are welcomed by tens of thousands of people. There are still loads of German barricades and strongpoints in the city, and many people on both sides are killed. On the 25th, Leclerc''s armor enters Paris just after seven in the morning. Koltic surrenders at 230 in the afternoon, having refused all of Hitler''s orders to destroy the city. During the liberation of the city, over 5,000 resistance fighters have been killed and 127 regular civilians. Many collaborators have been summarily killed, without trial or whatever. Today the 26th, Charles de Gaulle, head of the Provisional French Government, is part of the huge ceremonial parade, despite the sniper danger. You''ve all seen footage of it before, probably. Here is some more. All through this war you could expect only the unexpected.

', 'There are more than 7,000 armed members of the resistance in Paris by then, and around 6,000 German troops there. The 21st comes the last efforts of trapped German soldiers to break out of the Falaise pocket. In the Falaise battles, 50,000 Germans have been taken prisoner and 10,000 killed, but some 50,000 have escaped. By this day, all Allied armies here are advancing rapidly to the northeast, chasing the broken Germans. They are still behind the Operation Overlord timetable at this point, but the speed of the advance might correct that if this continues.

Now, Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower wants the Americans to head east towards Nancy and the Saar, and the British and Canadians to head north for Antwerp and the Rhine, but Allied Ground Forces Commander Bernard Montgomery wants both the British and American army groups to head north and not be split. What transpires is Canadian First Army is to wheel at Rouen, head to the channel at Le Havre and then go up the channel. British 2nd Army is to cross the Seine and head for the Somme, and US 12th Army Group gathers south and southwest of Paris until ordered to enter the city.

Wrecking the city and infantry street battles are not on the agenda, although on the 22nd, Adolf Hitler issues the first of several orders to Dietrich von Holtitz, military governor of Paris, to destroy the city. By the 23rd, resistance forces have largely freed Paris. On the 24th, there is fighting in the city again, though, as the Germans make a final effort. Philippe Leclerc leads the French to the outskirts of the city. Colonel Pierre Billotte enters the city with a small armored force from the Porte d''Orléans. They are welcomed by tens of thousands of people.

There are still loads of German barricades and strongpoints in the city, and many people on both sides are killed. On the 25th, Leclerc''s armor enters Paris just after seven in the morning. Holtitz surrenders at 2:30 in the afternoon, having refused all of Hitler''s orders to destroy the city. During the liberation of the city, over 5,000 resistance fighters have been killed and 127 regular civilians. Many collaborators have been summarily killed, without trial or whatever. Today, the 26th, Charles de Gaulle, head of the Provisional French Government, is part of the huge ceremonial parade, despite the sniper danger. You''ve all seen footage of it before, probably. Here is some more. All through this war you could expect only the unexpected.')
,('114', '6', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.



Prior Context:
rles de Gaulle, head of the Provisional French Government, is part of the huge ceremonial parade, despite the sniper danger. You''ve all seen footage of it before, probably. Here is some more. All through this war you could expect only the unexpected.

Original:
This for the triumphant return of Frenchmen to their brothers released from bondage. This for the day when Paris emerged from the shadows. There were tears and terror mingling with cheers and laughter. Death cracked his whip among the happy sightseers who welcomed the coming of a new life." So Paris has been freed. Something else this week, though. On the 23rd, Eisenhower tells Montgomery about the change in Allied command structure to take place September 1st. Eisenhower will assume direct command of all Allied armies in France. Monty will command Army Group of the North, and Omar Bradley will command Army Group of the East. There will indeed be a push for Antwerp and the Rhine, and one for the Tsar. In the field, by the evening of August 26th, the overall situation was as follows. The German armies were in full retreat, but fully capable of turning back for swift and savage strikes at their pursuers. Short but sweet. All Allied armies in France has a new meaning now, since the Allied invasion of Southern France began last week. And it very much continues this week. On the 21st, Aix-en-Provence falls to Lucien Truscott''s VI Corps. The 23rd, French troops reach Toulon and Marseille. The 24th, the Americans take Cannes on the coast and also Arles to the west. On the 25th, they take Avignon. Now, these might sound like just place names, but there''s something important to point out. Remember, the Wehrmacht has a quarter of a million men on the 500km march to north of Dijon, but those men are not fully motorized. The Allies are. The Allies are massively equipped. The Germans have 100 tanks and a few big guns. The Wehrmacht had come to France in one of the greatest mechanized operations of all time, but the retreat to Dijon was a slow procession of long, foot-mobile road columns, a kind of double-file march with high vulnerability on both flanks, all the ingredients for catastrophe. And the places I just mentioned, Aix, Arles, Avignon, this is the Allies overtaking the Germans and taking 24,000 prisoners. They are also advancing in two columns, one up the Rhône valley, one east of Grenoble. Truscott has a rapid armor exploitation force under Frederick Butler, too, and they cover nearly 300km in four days, with a final thrust of 100 on the 21st, to swing around and take Montelimar and try to cut off the retreat of German 19th army. Enter Wend von Wietersheim''s 11th Panzer Division.

', 'This is for the triumphant return of Frenchmen to their brothers released from bondage. This is for the day when Paris emerged from the shadows. There were tears and terror mingling with cheers and laughter. Death cracked his whip among the happy sightseers who welcomed the coming of a new life." So Paris has been freed. Something else this week, though. On the 23rd, Eisenhower tells Montgomery about the change in Allied command structure to take place September 1st. Eisenhower will assume direct command of all Allied armies in France. Monty will command Army Group of the North, and Omar Bradley will command Army Group of the East. There will indeed be a push for Antwerp and the Rhine, and one for the Tsar.

In the field, by the evening of August 26th, the overall situation was as follows. The German armies were in full retreat, but fully capable of turning back for swift and savage strikes at their pursuers. Short but sweet. All Allied armies in France have a new meaning now since the Allied invasion of Southern France began last week. And it very much continues this week. On the 21st, Aix-en-Provence falls to Lucien Truscott''s VI Corps. On the 23rd, French troops reach Toulon and Marseille. On the 24th, the Americans take Cannes on the coast and also Arles to the west. On the 25th, they take Avignon.

Now, these might sound like just place names, but there''s something important to point out. Remember, the Wehrmacht has a quarter of a million men on the 500km march to the north of Dijon, but those men are not fully motorized. The Allies are. The Allies are massively equipped. The Germans have 100 tanks and a few big guns. The Wehrmacht had come to France in one of the greatest mechanized operations of all time, but the retreat to Dijon was a slow procession of long, foot-mobile road columns, a kind of double-file march with high vulnerability on both flanks, all the ingredients for catastrophe.

And the places I just mentioned, Aix, Arles, Avignon, this is the Allies overtaking the Germans and taking 24,000 prisoners. They are also advancing in two columns, one up the Rhône valley, one east of Grenoble. Truscott has a rapid armor exploitation force under Frederick Butler, too, and they cover nearly 300km in four days, with a final thrust of 100 on the 21st, to swing around and take Montelimar and try to cut off the retreat of German 19th army. Enter Wend von Wietersheim''s 11th Panzer Division.')
,('114', '7', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.



Prior Context:
under Frederick Butler, too, and they cover nearly 300km in four days, with a final thrust of 100 on the 21st, to swing around and take Montelimar and try to cut off the retreat of German 19th army. Enter Wend von Wietersheim''s 11th Panzer Division.

Original:
working as both a shield from US 3rd Infantry coming up from the south, and a hammer against Butler''s task force, who while very mobile are lightly armored and cannot fight a concentration of Panther tanks. 11th Panzer Division is the only mechanized one in Army Group G, and it also has five batteries of 88mm guns. The fighting results in a stalemate by today, and with 36th Infantry making no gains, An angry Truscott arrives on the scene to relieve 36th commander John Dahlquist, but once Truscott sees the heavy terrain and the massive destruction, he does not do so and leaves. Neither side has the upper hand as the week ends, though casualties are higher for the Germans. There''s actually a new Allied offensive in Italy this week. They''ve spent the whole month there moving force around for the attack because the French, Moroccan, and Algerian mountain troops headed over to help with southern France, so the lack of mountain divisions has changed the Allied plans to a heavy attack up the coast instead of the center of the peninsula, which will ideally cause the Germans to shift force to the coast and then will come and attack through the Apennines in the weakened central sector. During the planning, they looked to lessons learned from Operation Diadem to see where they might do better. Things like traffic congestion and exploitation speed came up, so Operation Olive- this operation- will ease congestion by attacking on a broader front, three corps on a 25km front from the Adriatic coast. Rapid exploitation was recognized as being the key to their success. Despite the numerous ridges that had to be overcome, everyone was fully aware how tantalizingly close the northern plains were and of the need to get there quickly before the summer was out. Attackers left to right are British V Corps, the two divisions of the Canadian I Corps, and the Polish Corps on the coast. This was not the original battle order, and I specifically mention the number of Canadian divisions for a reason. See, V Corps was supposed to attack in the center, where the hills are lower and the Via Adriatica offers the best chance of rapid pursuit exploitation. And it is the largest corps with five divisions. The polls pointed out, though, that moving on the Via Adriatica is often actually slower than inland because of enemy demolitions.

', 'Working as both a shield from US 3rd Infantry coming up from the south and a hammer against Butler''s task force, who, while very mobile, are lightly armored and cannot fight a concentration of Panther tanks, 11th Panzer Division is the only mechanized one in Army Group G. It also has five batteries of 88mm guns. The fighting results in a stalemate by today, and with 36th Infantry making no gains, an angry Truscott arrives on the scene to relieve 36th commander John Dahlquist. However, once Truscott sees the heavy terrain and the massive destruction, he does not do so and leaves. Neither side has the upper hand as the week ends, though casualties are higher for the Germans.

There''s actually a new Allied offensive in Italy this week. They''ve spent the whole month there moving force around for the attack because the French, Moroccan, and Algerian mountain troops headed over to help with southern France. So, the lack of mountain divisions has changed the Allied plans to a heavy attack up the coast instead of the center of the peninsula, which will ideally cause the Germans to shift force to the coast and then come and attack through the Apennines in the weakened central sector.

During the planning, they looked to lessons learned from Operation Diadem to see where they might do better. Things like traffic congestion and exploitation speed came up, so Operation Olive—this operation—will ease congestion by attacking on a broader front. Three corps on a 25km front from the Adriatic coast. Rapid exploitation was recognized as being the key to their success. Despite the numerous ridges that had to be overcome, everyone was fully aware of how tantalizingly close the northern plains were and of the need to get there quickly before the summer was out.

Attackers left to right are British V Corps, the two divisions of the Canadian I Corps, and the Polish Corps on the coast. This was not the original battle order, and I specifically mention the number of Canadian divisions for a reason. See, V Corps was supposed to attack in the center, where the hills are lower and the Via Adriatica offers the best chance of rapid pursuit exploitation. And it is the largest corps with five divisions. The Poles pointed out, though, that moving on the Via Adriatica is often actually slower than inland because of enemy demolitions.')
,('114', '8', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.



Prior Context:
he Via Adriatica offers the best chance of rapid pursuit exploitation. And it is the largest corps with five divisions. The polls pointed out, though, that moving on the Via Adriatica is often actually slower than inland because of enemy demolitions.

Original:
So 8th Army Commander Oliver Leese has switched the British and the Canadian positions, meaning the Canadians are now supposed to head up the coast road as fast as they can, but with less than half the original force of the British Corps. Also, since they''re involved in the initial assault this week, they''ll have no fresh armor for follow-up pursuit. And V Corps, with all of its tanks and trucks, will now be operating in hillier and steeper ground with really narrow roads. but by the 25th, 59,000 men and 1,122 big guns are in position. The opening barrage that day catches the enemy off guard, the Desert Air Force further savages the enemy, and 8th Army crosses the Metauro, making a solid bridgehead the 26th. The three divisions of the 76th Panzer Corps opposite them are soon pushed back. and the week ends with the offensive trying to make a bridgehead under machine gun and mortar fire. And to the north in Italy, there is big partisan activity this week. After a three day fight, the fastest stronghold of Baceno falls to Italian partisans the 23rd. Within a few days, all the valleys up here near the Swiss border are under their control. And here, are a bunch of notes to end the week. On the 21st, the Dumbarton Oaks Conference begins. From then to the 29th, Allied representatives discuss post-war security. They agree there should be an International Court of Justice and an Assembly of United Nations with a Council of Leading States. The Americans, British, and Soviets are led by Edward Stettinius, Sir Alexander Cadogan, and Andrei Gromyko, respectively. From the 22nd, Japan will conscript all women between 12 and 40 for war work. That same day, Sir Henry Moore sends three British carriers and two escort carriers, and Battleship Duke of York in support, to attack German battleship Tirpitz at Carfjord. The attack is detected coming in and the attackers are savaged by German fighters and guns. This happens again without result the 24th and 29th. On the 23rd, the British War Cabinet agrees that Jewish soldiers in Allied armies can serve in the Jewish Brigade Group, a specifically Jewish fighting force. Winston Churchill telegrams Roosevelt, This will give great satisfaction to the Jews when it is published, and surely they of all other races have the right to strike at the Germans as a recognizable body. They wish to have their own flag, which is the Star of David, on a white background with two light blue bars. I cannot see why this should not be done.

', 'So, 8th Army Commander Oliver Leese has switched the British and the Canadian positions, meaning the Canadians are now supposed to head up the coast road as fast as they can, but with less than half the original force of the British Corps. Also, since they''re involved in the initial assault this week, they''ll have no fresh armor for follow-up pursuit. And V Corps, with all of its tanks and trucks, will now be operating in hillier and steeper ground with really narrow roads. But by the 25th, 59,000 men and 1,122 big guns are in position. The opening barrage that day catches the enemy off guard, the Desert Air Force further savages the enemy, and 8th Army crosses the Metauro, making a solid bridgehead on the 26th. The three divisions of the 76th Panzer Corps opposite them are soon pushed back. And the week ends with the offensive trying to make a bridgehead under machine gun and mortar fire. And to the north in Italy, there is big partisan activity this week. After a three-day fight, the fastest stronghold of Baceno falls to Italian partisans on the 23rd. Within a few days, all the valleys up here near the Swiss border are under their control. And here are a bunch of notes to end the week. On the 21st, the Dumbarton Oaks Conference begins. From then to the 29th, Allied representatives discuss post-war security. They agree there should be an International Court of Justice and an Assembly of United Nations with a Council of Leading States. The Americans, British, and Soviets are led by Edward Stettinius, Sir Alexander Cadogan, and Andrei Gromyko, respectively. From the 22nd, Japan will conscript all women between 12 and 40 for war work. That same day, Sir Henry Moore sends three British carriers and two escort carriers, and Battleship Duke of York in support, to attack the German battleship Tirpitz at Carfjord. The attack is detected coming in and the attackers are savaged by German fighters and guns. This happens again without result on the 24th and 29th. On the 23rd, the British War Cabinet agrees that Jewish soldiers in Allied armies can serve in the Jewish Brigade Group, a specifically Jewish fighting force. Winston Churchill telegrams Roosevelt, "This will give great satisfaction to the Jews when it is published, and surely they, of all other races, have the right to strike at the Germans as a recognizable body. They wish to have their own flag, which is the Star of David, on a white background with two light blue bars. I cannot see why this should not be done."')
,('114', '9', '2023-08-26', 'text_correction', 'The user may give you text that has been transcribed. It''s your responsibility to fix any discrepancies and ensure it matches the original audio''s intent.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section. Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
- The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
- Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.



Prior Context:
and surely they of all other races have the right to strike at the Germans as a recognizable body. They wish to have their own flag, which is the Star of David, on a white background with two light blue bars. I cannot see why this should not be done.

Original:
Indeed, I think the flying of this flag at the head of a combat unit would be a message to go all over the world." on the 25th in Slovakia, guerrillas have taken control of Turchiansky''s Fatim Martin, and today Slovak garrisons in other towns have been defecting to the partisans. And there''s this. The head of the German military mission to Romania is stopped in Slovakia en route to Berlin, taken from his train along with his staff, and put in a barracks. If something were to happen to him, the situation in Slovakia could explode. That same day comes an Allied recon flight over Monowitz Synthetic Oil Plant. They also photograph Auschwitz again. The Allies have had a massive bombing campaign this month against synthetic oil facilities and it has had an effect. Secret reports have been intercepted by Bletchley that German operational activity is being ever more curtailed by the lack of available fuel. And that is the week. with an offensive beginning in Italy, but everything else being overshadowed by the liberation of Paris and the surrender and then defection of Romania. Seriously, this week begins with Romania as one of Germany''s main allies and ends with Romania at war with Germany, which leaves the Soviets a world of freedom to exploit, although that''s probably not a good choice of words. But Romanian King Michael tells the world, and the world rejoices. Paris is free after four years and the world rejoices. There''s a lot of people killing and dying, of course, this is a world war after all, but people not just hopeful but rejoicing. We don''t see that too often. Perhaps it will continue. One can but hope so. We shall continue, at any rate, to do this series until the end of the war, whenever that may be. We do this thanks to the TimeGhost Army. You can join the army at timeghost.tv or patreon.com. These are the newest commissioned officers and Aiden O''Connell is the army member of the week. And if you want to see an awesome mini-series we did that happens after this war, then check out the Indonesian War of Independence right here. Don''t forget to subscribe. See you next time.

', 'Indeed, I think the flying of this flag at the head of a combat unit would be a message to go all over the world." On the 25th in Slovakia, guerrillas have taken control of Turchiansky''s Fatim Martin, and today Slovak garrisons in other towns have been defecting to the partisans. And there''s this: The head of the German military mission to Romania is stopped in Slovakia en route to Berlin, taken from his train along with his staff, and put in a barracks. If something were to happen to him, the situation in Slovakia could explode. 

That same day comes an Allied recon flight over Monowitz Synthetic Oil Plant. They also photograph Auschwitz again. The Allies have had a massive bombing campaign this month against synthetic oil facilities and it has had an effect. Secret reports have been intercepted by Bletchley that German operational activity is being ever more curtailed by the lack of available fuel. And that is the week, with an offensive beginning in Italy, but everything else being overshadowed by the liberation of Paris and the surrender and then defection of Romania. Seriously, this week begins with Romania as one of Germany''s main allies and ends with Romania at war with Germany, which leaves the Soviets a world of freedom to exploit, although that''s probably not a good choice of words. 

But Romanian King Michael tells the world, and the world rejoices. Paris is free after four years and the world rejoices. There''s a lot of people killing and dying, of course, this is a world war after all, but people not just hopeful but rejoicing. We don''t see that too often. Perhaps it will continue. One can but hope so. We shall continue, at any rate, to do this series until the end of the war, whenever that may be. We do this thanks to the TimeGhost Army. You can join the army at timeghost.tv or patreon.com. These are the newest commissioned officers and Aiden O''Connell is the army member of the week. And if you want to see an awesome mini-series we did that happens after this war, then check out the Indonesian War of Independence right here. Don''t forget to subscribe. See you next time.')
,('119', '1', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 1 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:

Original:
once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.

Corrected:
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, there lived a brave young girl with a kind heart and a spirited mind.

Prior Context:

Original:
In the beggining, there was only chaos and void. then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Corrected:
In the beginning, there was only chaos and void. Then, light and form emerged, shaping the universe.

Prior Context:


Original:
Well, today I''m going to finish up a two-lecture description of paleoclimatology and the ice ages. And then starting on Friday, I''ll go into the subject of global warming. And I''ll be lecturing about that Friday, next Monday, and then you have your exam. I may even be continuing that subject on the following Friday. So we''re going to spend about a week. global warming. And it''s a very controversial subject, very interesting scientifically, politically, socially. And we''ve laid a good foundation for studying it. All the things we''ve studied up until this moment, including this stuff, I think will help us as we try to struggle with this issue of global warming. So any questions there? If not, so you remember, we started this last time. And I''m just going to flick through. So these are the subjects we''re doing. And I did these first three last time. Today we''re going to finish up the remaining four subjects within this general area. So just to flash everything by you. We talked about the last glacial maximum we got here. So let me put a couple things up on the board just to reinforce what''s here. Hydrogen has a nucleus with one proton. Therefore, it has a single positive charge and typically has one electron with a negative charge going around it. There are two famous isotopes of hydrogen. One is deuterium and one is tritium. I''m not going to talk about tritium today, but I''m going to talk about deuterium. It has one proton and one neutron. This has a mass of one. This has a mass of two. But notice it still has just one positive charge, so it has just one electron going around it. So chemically, the two are identical. They have the same electronic orbitals, and they''ll bond and so on in the same way that the other one does. The other one I want to think about is oxygen. Oxygen typically has eight protons and eight neutrons. Because of eight protons, it has eight positive charges. It''ll have eight electrons going around it. And that''ll determine its chemical properties. And this would be called oxygen-16, because that mass adds up to 16 atomic mass units. The other one we''re interested in has 8 protons and 10 neutrons, adding up to a mass of 18. Still has eight protons, therefore has eight electrons. Same chemical properties, but a different mass. And this one is called oxygen-18. And by convention, that mass number is put to the upper left of the letter symbol for that element. So oxygen-16 and oxygen-18. Now, we''re interested in water.

', 'Well, today I''m going to finish up a two-lecture description of paleoclimatology and the ice ages. And then starting on Friday, I''ll go into the subject of global warming. And I''ll be lecturing about that Friday, next Monday, and then you have your exam. I may even be continuing that subject on the following Friday. So we''re going to spend about a week on global warming. And it''s a very controversial subject, very interesting scientifically, politically, socially. And we''ve laid a good foundation for studying it. All the things we''ve studied up until this moment, including this stuff, I think will help us as we try to struggle with this issue of global warming. So any questions there?

If not, so you remember, we started this last time. And I''m just going to flick through. So these are the subjects we''re doing. And I did these first three last time. Today we''re going to finish up the remaining four subjects within this general area. So just to flash everything by you. We talked about the last glacial maximum we got here.

So let me put a couple things up on the board just to reinforce what''s here.

Hydrogen has a nucleus with one proton. Therefore, it has a single positive charge and typically has one electron with a negative charge going around it. There are two famous isotopes of hydrogen. One is deuterium and one is tritium. I''m not going to talk about tritium today, but I''m going to talk about deuterium. It has one proton and one neutron. This has a mass of one. This has a mass of two. But notice it still has just one positive charge, so it has just one electron going around it. So chemically, the two are identical. They have the same electronic orbitals, and they''ll bond and so on in the same way that the other one does.

The other one I want to think about is oxygen. Oxygen typically has eight protons and eight neutrons. Because of eight protons, it has eight positive charges. It''ll have eight electrons going around it. And that''ll determine its chemical properties. And this would be called oxygen-16, because that mass adds up to 16 atomic mass units. The other one we''re interested in has 8 protons and 10 neutrons, adding up to a mass of 18. Still has eight protons, therefore has eight electrons. Same chemical properties, but a different mass. And this one is called oxygen-18. And by convention, that mass number is put to the upper left of the letter symbol for that element. So oxygen-16 and oxygen-18.

Now, we''re interested in water.')
,('119', '2', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 2 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
i mean really people what are we even doing here are we just gona ignore the facts and pretend like
Original:
everything’s hunky-dory I don’t think so we need to adress the problems

Corrected:
everything’s hunky-dory? I don’t think so. We need to address the problems.

Prior Context:
ectrons. Same chemical properties, but a different mass. And this one is called oxygen-18. And by convention, that mass number is put to the upper left of the letter symbol for that element. So oxygen-16 and oxygen-18. Now, we''re interested in water.

Original:
So the question is, what water molecules can we make from these isotopes? And by far the most common would be normal H2O, which would have oxygen-16 plus two hydrogens. coming off it. Water vapor has a dihedral shape. It''s not a linear molecule. The hydrogens droop off it at an angle. That''s by far the most common, because this is much more common than that by a factor of 1,000 or so. And this is much more common than that by a factor of 1,000 or so. So if you just randomly put these atoms together to form molecules, almost everything is going to be like this. But there are going to be some that have this structure, where you replace one of the hydrogens with a deuterium. Notice that this has a mass of 18, because it''s 16 plus 1 plus 1. This is going to have a mass of 19, because it''s 16 plus 2 plus 1. And then the other one is where you replace the oxygen 16 with oxygen 18, but keep both of these as hydrogens. That''s going to be 18, 19, 20, so that''s going to have a mass Now you can imagine others. For example, you could replace both of the hydrogens with deuterium. But that would be so rare that I''m not interested in it. Or you could replace the oxygen 16 by 18 and one of the hydrogens by deuterium. But again, that is so rare that I''m not interested in it. So I''m going to just limit myself to these. these three isotopes. This would be called the normal, and these would be the heavier ones. And we keep track of the ratio. For example, if you''re comparing these in a sample, you would measure the D to H ratio. Or if you''re comparing these two, you would take the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16. And the higher this is, you would say the common terminology is that the water is heavy if it has a large deuterium to hydrogen ratio. Or it''s heavy if it has a large oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 ratio. Or light if it''s got a lower than usual ratio of deuterium. So I''m going to be using these terms, heavy and light, in a relative fashion to describe whether these ratios are typical for ocean water or larger or smaller than that. So I hope you''ve Googled or gone back to your high school or college chemistry book and reviewed this. Now, isotopes also appear. Some isotopes are so-called radiogenic isotopes. They are temporary isotopes that can be formed. by nuclear reaction and then decay automatically with some half-life. Those are called unstable or radiogenic isotopes. And maybe those are the isotopes you''ve heard about before. But I''m not talking about those.

', 'So the question is, what water molecules can we make from these isotopes? And by far the most common would be normal H2O, which would have oxygen-16 plus two hydrogens coming off it. Water vapor has a dihedral shape. It''s not a linear molecule. The hydrogens droop off it at an angle. That''s by far the most common because this is much more common than that by a factor of 1,000 or so. And this is much more common than that by a factor of 1,000 or so.

So if you just randomly put these atoms together to form molecules, almost everything is going to be like this. But there are going to be some that have this structure, where you replace one of the hydrogens with a deuterium. Notice that this has a mass of 18 because it''s 16 plus 1 plus 1. This is going to have a mass of 19 because it''s 16 plus 2 plus 1. And then the other one is where you replace the oxygen 16 with oxygen 18 but keep both of these as hydrogens. That''s going to be 18, 19, 20, so that''s going to have a mass.

Now you can imagine others. For example, you could replace both of the hydrogens with deuterium. But that would be so rare that I''m not interested in it. Or you could replace the oxygen 16 by 18 and one of the hydrogens by deuterium. But again, that is so rare that I''m not interested in it. So I''m going to just limit myself to these three isotopes. This would be called the normal, and these would be the heavier ones. And we keep track of the ratio. For example, if you''re comparing these in a sample, you would measure the D to H ratio. Or if you''re comparing these two, you would take the ratio of oxygen 18 to oxygen 16. And the higher this is, you would say the common terminology is that the water is heavy if it has a large deuterium to hydrogen ratio. Or it''s heavy if it has a large oxygen 18 to oxygen 16 ratio. Or light if it''s got a lower than usual ratio of deuterium.

So I''m going to be using these terms, heavy and light, in a relative fashion to describe whether these ratios are typical for ocean water or larger or smaller than that. So I hope you''ve Googled or gone back to your high school or college chemistry book and reviewed this.

Now, isotopes also appear. Some isotopes are so-called radiogenic isotopes. They are temporary isotopes that can be formed by nuclear reaction and then decay automatically with some half-life. Those are called unstable or radiogenic isotopes. And maybe those are the isotopes you''ve heard about before. But I''m not talking about those.')
,('119', '3', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 3 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
emporary isotopes that can be formed. by nuclear reaction and then decay automatically with some half-life. Those are called unstable or radiogenic isotopes. And maybe those are the isotopes you''ve heard about before. But I''m not talking about those.

Original:
These are called stable isotopes, because they remain. They don''t have any natural decay. They just exist in these different mass forms, and they persist over millions and billions of years. In this case, I would call these the stable isotopes of water, which is what I''ve labeled this slide. Any questions on that? So now, for our purposes, it''s very important to know that the heavier isotopes, these two, have a slightly lower vapor pressure. Because they''re heavier, they move a little more slowly in the liquid. Which means they evaporate more slowly than this, but they would condense more readily than normal water. Therefore, when you do get a phase change, when you get vapor going to liquid, or you get liquid going to vapor, there will be a fractionation. This is the other new word. A fractionation means a process where you change the ratios of these two things. For example, if you had a bucket of nuts in your room, peanuts and cashews, and your roommate happened to be a cashew lover. So when she was grabbing a fistful of nuts, she would tend to get one that had more cashews in it. Well, that''s a fractionation process. What''s being left behind then is going to be a little bit heavier, a little more enriched in the peanuts, and a little bit more depleted in the cashews. Because she''s grabbing out her favorite nuts. That''s what''s going on when you''re evaporating or condensing water. You''re changing the ratio of peanuts to cashews by the way you''re doing that thermodynamic transformation. Vapor to liquid, or liquid back to vapor. That''s what we''re going to be tracking today. Now, the way we keep track of these ratios is with the so-called delta notation. We have to define a reference ratio of D to H. And that''s standard mean ocean water. It''s basically a sample of several places around the ocean. They collect, mix them all together. and store large volumes of it in laboratories and use that as a reference every time they''re doing an isotope ratio measurement. So that''s called, the abbreviation for that is SMO, Standard Mean Ocean Water. Then you measure the DDH ratio in the sample of interest, divide it by the DDH ratio in your reference liquid, SMO. Subtract one, multiply by 1,000, and that is so-called the delta D value. If it''s deuterium, it''s delta D. If you do the same thing with oxygen, it''s the delta O18 value. And that''s what we''ll be tracking. So notice the way this is subtracted.

', 'These are called stable isotopes because they remain. They don''t have any natural decay; they just exist in these different mass forms and persist over millions and billions of years. In this case, I would call these the stable isotopes of water, which is what I''ve labeled this slide. Any questions on that? So now, for our purposes, it''s very important to know that the heavier isotopes, these two, have a slightly lower vapor pressure because they''re heavier. They move a little more slowly in the liquid, which means they evaporate more slowly than normal water but condense more readily than normal water. Therefore, when you get a phase change, when vapor goes to liquid or liquid goes to vapor, there will be a fractionation. Fractionation is a process where you change the ratios of these two things. For example, if you had a bucket of nuts in your room, peanuts and cashews, and your roommate happened to be a cashew lover, when she was grabbing a fistful of nuts, she would tend to get one that had more cashews in it. Well, that''s a fractionation process. What''s being left behind then is going to be a little bit heavier, a little more enriched in the peanuts, and a little bit more depleted in the cashews because she''s grabbing out her favorite nuts. That''s what''s going on when you''re evaporating or condensing water. You''re changing the ratio of peanuts to cashews by the way you''re doing that thermodynamic transformation, vapor to liquid, or liquid back to vapor. That''s what we''ll be tracking today. Now, the way we keep track of these ratios is with the so-called delta notation. We have to define a reference ratio of D to H, and that''s standard mean ocean water. It''s basically a sample of several places around the ocean. They collect, mix them all together, and store large volumes of it in laboratories and use that as a reference every time they''re doing an isotope ratio measurement. So that''s called the abbreviation for that is SMO, Standard Mean Ocean Water. Then you measure the D/H ratio in the sample of interest, divide it by the D/H ratio in your reference liquid, SMO, subtract one, multiply by 1,000, and that is the so-called delta D value. If it''s deuterium, it''s delta D. If you do the same thing with oxygen, it''s the delta O18 value. And that''s what we''ll be tracking. So notice the way this is subtracted.')
,('119', '4', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 4 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
, SMO. Subtract one, multiply by 1,000, and that is so-called the delta D value. If it''s deuterium, it''s delta D. If you do the same thing with oxygen, it''s the delta O18 value. And that''s what we''ll be tracking. So notice the way this is subtracted.

Original:
So if you had a sample that had a larger ratio of D to H than the reference, that would end up being a positive number. And we would call that, we''d say the sample is heavier than SMO. If the DDH ratio is less than the standard, then the number is going to turn out to be negative. And we''re going to say that sample is lighter than SMO. This quantity is usually stated as per mil, or written not with a percent sign, but with a percent sign with two zeros on the bottom. So again, a reservoir of liquid water under evaporation will become isotopically heavier because the lighter isotopes will evaporate more readily. A reservoir of water vapor, imagine some water vapor in this room, and we''re condensing out some of it, that''s going to be isotopically heavier, sorry, become lighter because the heavier isotopes are condensing out and leaving preferentially. You can do these experiments in the laboratory. You could take a dish of water, take a sample from it, put it into a mass spectrometer to determine the isotope ratios, then let it sit there for a few days and partially evaporate. And when you came back and took another sample of the liquid, that would be this case. And again, put it on the mass spectrometer to get the isotope ratio. It would be heavier, isotopically heavier, because the lighter isotopes would have evaporated preferentially. So it''s an easy thing to do in the laboratory to measure this physical process called isotope fractionation. Now in the real world, if you start with an ocean value of 0. The delta D value or the delta O18 value would be zero, which is likely, right? Because ocean is our modern reference for isotope ratios. So typically, the delta values for modern ocean are going to be very close to zero. When you evaporate, the isotopes, the lighter isotopes evaporate preferentially. And so the vapor you have in the atmosphere is typically going to be lighter than the ocean. It''ll have a negative. delta value, and then as you condense water out, the rain is going to be heavier than the vapor. So if the vapor''s minus 10, the rain''s going to be heavier than that, let''s say minus 3. The remaining vapor, after you''ve removed some of the liquid, is going to be lighter still, because you''ve removed some of the heavier isotopes. Then if you rain again from that lighter vapor, The precipitation is going to be heavier than that vapor, but lighter than the rain that fell out before.

', 'So if you had a sample that had a larger ratio of D to H than the reference, that would end up being a positive number. And we would call that, we''d say the sample is heavier than SMO. If the DDH ratio is less than the standard, then the number is going to turn out to be negative. And we''re going to say that the sample is lighter than SMO. This quantity is usually stated as per mil, or written not with a percent sign, but with a percent sign with two zeros on the bottom.

So again, a reservoir of liquid water under evaporation will become isotopically heavier because the lighter isotopes will evaporate more readily. A reservoir of water vapor, imagine some water vapor in this room, and we''re condensing out some of it, that''s going to be isotopically lighter because the heavier isotopes are condensing out and leaving preferentially. You can do these experiments in the laboratory. You could take a dish of water, take a sample from it, put it into a mass spectrometer to determine the isotope ratios, then let it sit there for a few days and partially evaporate. And when you came back and took another sample of the liquid, that would be this case. And again, put it on the mass spectrometer to get the isotope ratio. It would be isotopically heavier because the lighter isotopes would have evaporated preferentially. 

So it''s an easy thing to do in the laboratory to measure this physical process called isotope fractionation. Now in the real world, if you start with an ocean value of 0, the delta D value or the delta O18 value would be zero, which is likely, right? Because the ocean is our modern reference for isotope ratios. So typically, the delta values for the modern ocean are going to be very close to zero. When you evaporate, the lighter isotopes evaporate preferentially. And so the vapor you have in the atmosphere is typically going to be lighter than the ocean. It''ll have a negative delta value. And then, as you condense water out, the rain is going to be heavier than the vapor. So if the vapor''s minus 10, the rain''s going to be heavier than that, let''s say minus 3. The remaining vapor, after you''ve removed some of the liquid, is going to be lighter still because you''ve removed some of the heavier isotopes. Then if you rain again from that lighter vapor, the precipitation is going to be heavier than that vapor but lighter than the rain that fell out before.')
,('119', '5', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 5 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
f the liquid, is going to be lighter still, because you''ve removed some of the heavier isotopes. Then if you rain again from that lighter vapor, The precipitation is going to be heavier than that vapor, but lighter than the rain that fell out before.

Original:
And the vapor remaining is going to be even lighter because you''ve removed heavier isotopes of the vapor that you started with. So this is a progressive fractionation process. This is a little bit tricky. So if there''s questions here, let me go back over this. Yeah. I''m sorry? Well, so that''s the delta value. That would be, if that''s delta O18, and I think those values would be appropriate, that would be the value here. And if it''s negative, it means that that number was less than that number. So that ratio was less than one. So that when I subtracted one from it, I got a negative number. So what it''s telling me is that that sample is lighter than my ocean reference, my Smoe reference. So all the numbers in this cartoon are delta values, and they''re indicated that by that little per mil sign there, that per 1,000 sign there. That means not per 100, like a percent, but per 1,000. Question? STUDENT 2 So it''s compared to snow, water, for example, compared to the ocean? That''s right. So that''s right. That''s why this first value is zero, because it''s being compared with ocean. And so that delta value turns out to be zero if it is ocean water you are sampling. Well, the rain, this is the rain. I should be using, I hope I didn''t misspeak. Rain and precipitation I''m using synonymously. But I''m drawing a stark contrast between the vapor and the rain. So here the vapor you''re starting with is minus 10 per mil. The rain that comes out of that is, while it''s lighter than ocean, it''s heavier than the vapor from which it''s formed. So it has a negative number, but not as negative as that, making the vapor still lighter, making the next precipitation still lighter, and the vapor is even lighter than that vapor. So the things progress along together, gradually raining out the heavier isotopes. Yes? STUDENT 2 Why is there evapotranspiration in the paper, the second paper, if I remember? PROFESSOR STRANGE I''d rather not talk about this one, because it involves a complicated process of what water has fallen to Earth and what is being re-evaporated. So let me just ignore that. This is a correct value on average, but I''d rather not get into that, because it complicates the picture. We''re just going to deal with primarily these issues here. Yes? STUDENT 2 Does the percentage of the vapor as it gets smaller as it gets more negative, how does that affect the weather? PROFESSOR RON SILVA Not at all. So this is a climate diagnostic subject.

', 'And the vapor remaining is going to be even lighter because you''ve removed heavier isotopes of the vapor that you started with. So this is a progressive fractionation process. This is a little bit tricky. So if there are questions here, let me go back over this.

Yeah. I''m sorry? Well, so that''s the delta value. That would be, if that''s delta O18, and I think those values would be appropriate, that would be the value here. And if it''s negative, it means that that number was less than that number. So that ratio was less than one. So when I subtracted one from it, I got a negative number. So what it''s telling me is that that sample is lighter than my ocean reference, my snow reference.

So all the numbers in this cartoon are delta values, and they''re indicated by that little per mil sign there, that per 1,000 sign there. That means not per 100, like a percent, but per 1,000. Question?

STUDENT 2: So it''s compared to snow, water, for example, compared to the ocean?

PROFESSOR STRANGE: That''s right. So that''s right. That''s why this first value is zero because it''s being compared with the ocean. And so that delta value turns out to be zero if it is ocean water you are sampling.

Well, the rain, this is the rain. I should be using, I hope I didn''t misspeak. Rain and precipitation I''m using synonymously. But I''m drawing a stark contrast between the vapor and the rain. So here the vapor you''re starting with is minus 10 per mil. The rain that comes out of that is, while it''s lighter than the ocean, it''s heavier than the vapor from which it''s formed. So it has a negative number, but not as negative as that, making the vapor still lighter, making the next precipitation still lighter, and the vapor is even lighter than that vapor. So things progress along together, gradually raining out the heavier isotopes.

Yes?

STUDENT 2: Why is there evapotranspiration in the paper, the second paper, if I remember?

PROFESSOR STRANGE: I''d rather not talk about this one because it involves a complicated process of what water has fallen to Earth and what is being re-evaporated. So let me just ignore that. This is a correct value on average, but I''d rather not get into that because it complicates the picture. We''re just going to deal with primarily these issues here.

Yes?

STUDENT 2: Does the percentage of the vapor, as it gets smaller and more negative, affect the weather?

PROFESSOR RON SILVA: Not at all. So this is a climate diagnostic subject.')
,('119', '6', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 6 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
st going to deal with primarily these issues here. Yes? STUDENT 2 Does the percentage of the vapor as it gets smaller as it gets more negative, how does that affect the weather? PROFESSOR RON SILVA Not at all. So this is a climate diagnostic subject.

Original:
It has nothing to do at all with how the atmosphere works. That''s the thing about these isotopes. They''re behaving chemically like ordinary elements, and this slight shift in the vapor pressure is so small that it doesn''t have any known influence on the weather patterns. So we''re just using this as a tool to understand what nature is doing, not as something that will change nature. So when you go to Antarctica or Greenland, and dig down and pull out an ice core, you''re going to look at things as a function of depth. I''ll show you some pictures in just a minute. But from that ice core, you''re going to shave off ice from different depths and determine the delta D and the delta O18 values as a function of depth. Generally, the isotopes in the ice cores are lighter than the ocean. We saw that because, for example, this, the precipitation falling on this mountaintop, is lighter than the ocean. And it goes back to this initial evaporation. The vapor became so much lighter as it evaporated that that lightness still remains. It''s even amplified by the precipitation that''s occurred between the ocean and the location where you''re getting your sample. The isotopes in the ice core will be lighter than the ocean. But they''re not going to be constant. They''re going to vary with climate. And in the literature, there are two ideas that have been put forward to understand why those isotopes would vary with climate. One is that under a different climate situation, the source of the water vapor might change. Something back here might change. And the other is that the fractionation that takes place in the atmosphere between the ocean and your sampling location might change. So I put that here. Source changes or changes in that progressive fractionation in the atmosphere. Now it''s believed now by almost every author that this is the dominant one. So I''m going to focus on this. So in the next bullet, I''ve said it''s mostly sensitive to local air temperature, as that measures the degree of fractionation, which means that you get a light isotope signature during ice age. I''ve tried to illustrate that here. So you have some water vapor source. We''re going to presume for the moment this is constant, giving you the same isotope ratios in the evaporating vapor. Then as this air parcel moves along and encounters different clouds and different storm events, you''re going to gradually precipitate out that water.

', 'It has nothing to do at all with how the atmosphere works. That''s the thing about these isotopes. They''re behaving chemically like ordinary elements, and this slight shift in the vapor pressure is so small that it doesn''t have any known influence on the weather patterns. So we''re just using this as a tool to understand what nature is doing, not as something that will change nature.

So when you go to Antarctica or Greenland, and dig down and pull out an ice core, you''re going to look at things as a function of depth. I''ll show you some pictures in just a minute. But from that ice core, you''re going to shave off ice from different depths and determine the delta D and the delta O18 values as a function of depth.

Generally, the isotopes in the ice cores are lighter than the ocean. We saw that because, for example, the precipitation falling on this mountaintop is lighter than the ocean. And it goes back to this initial evaporation. The vapor became so much lighter as it evaporated that that lightness still remains. It''s even amplified by the precipitation that''s occurred between the ocean and the location where you''re getting your sample.

The isotopes in the ice core will be lighter than the ocean. But they''re not going to be constant. They''re going to vary with climate. And in the literature, there are two ideas that have been put forward to understand why those isotopes would vary with climate. One is that under a different climate situation, the source of the water vapor might change. Something back here might change. And the other is that the fractionation that takes place in the atmosphere between the ocean and your sampling location might change. So I put that here: source changes or changes in that progressive fractionation in the atmosphere.

Now it''s believed by almost every author that this is the dominant one. So I''m going to focus on this. So in the next bullet, I''ve said it''s mostly sensitive to local air temperature, as that measures the degree of fractionation, which means that you get a light isotope signature during the ice age. I''ve tried to illustrate that here. So you have some water vapor source. We''re going to presume for the moment this is constant, giving you the same isotope ratios in the evaporating vapor. Then as this air parcel moves along and encounters different clouds and different storm events, you''re going to gradually precipitate out that water.')
,('119', '7', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 7 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
as we explore the depths of the ocean, we continue to discover new and fascinating species. one of the most intriguing creatures found in the abyss is
Original:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in lenght. it''s elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends

Corrected:
the giant squid, which can grow up to 43 feet in length. Its elusive nature has made it a subject of many legends.

Prior Context:
resume for the moment this is constant, giving you the same isotope ratios in the evaporating vapor. Then as this air parcel moves along and encounters different clouds and different storm events, you''re going to gradually precipitate out that water.

Original:
Every time you do so, you''re going to be precipitating the heavier vapor, leaving the lighter behind. So the next precipitation is going to be lighter than the first. and still lighter and still lighter. And so the isotope ratio in this final falling snow that''s going to fall on your ice sheet is going to depend on how much you''ve cooled the air between the source and the sample area. Because the more you''ve cooled it, the more water vapor you have removed. Remember, when you drop the temperature, you decrease the amount of vapor that can be held. And therefore, if you cool the air a lot, you''ve had to remove more and more of the water vapor. And when you do that, you get an isotope which gets lighter and lighter in proportion to how much you''ve cooled the air going from source to record location. All right, so we''re going to look at some Greenland cores. There have been a number of them done. Camp Century, a couple of GRIPS, GISP2, and DI3. Here''s a snowfall map of Greenland. Most of the accumulation is down here in the southeast, but you get some accumulation everywhere. And what we''re going to do is to put a drilling rig. up on the ice cap, up on the ice sheet, and drill down and end up, here''s a scientist marking an ice core. An ice core is about that big around. And it can be many hundreds of meters, even a kilometer or so deep. And of course, they pull it out in sections. They pull out a section, break it. lay it down, put it in a storage shed, then drill out another ice core, and so on. So they end up with these things stored in sections, and then they can do analysis as a function of depth. And if they have some kind of a dating tool, they can determine what age that ice is at. Of course, older and older as you go deeper down into the ice core. We''ve done this on Antarctica as well, all these dots are places where there have been ice cores. We''re going to be talking about the Vostok core, which is one of the deepest cores. This one was done by the Russians some years ago. So here is a record then with years before present on the x-axis. And in the upper panel are cores from Antarctica. And they are represented as delta D values. Well, here they''ve written it as delta 2H. But remember, 2H is what we''re calling deuterium. So this is the same as our delta D value. And then down on the lower panel is the delta O18 for a Greenland ice core. In fact, two of them, ingrip and grip. And you can use either isotope.

', 'Every time you do so, you''re going to be precipitating the heavier vapor, leaving the lighter behind. So the next precipitation is going to be lighter than the first, and still lighter, and still lighter. And so the isotope ratio in this final falling snow that''s going to fall on your ice sheet is going to depend on how much you''ve cooled the air between the source and the sample area. Because the more you''ve cooled it, the more water vapor you have removed. Remember, when you drop the temperature, you decrease the amount of vapor that can be held. And therefore, if you cool the air a lot, you''ve had to remove more and more of the water vapor. And when you do that, you get an isotope that gets lighter and lighter in proportion to how much you''ve cooled the air going from source to record location.

All right, so we''re going to look at some Greenland cores. There have been a number of them done: Camp Century, a couple of GRIPS, GISP2, and DI3. Here''s a snowfall map of Greenland. Most of the accumulation is down here in the southeast, but you get some accumulation everywhere. And what we''re going to do is to put a drilling rig up on the ice cap, up on the ice sheet, and drill down and end up. Here''s a scientist marking an ice core. An ice core is about that big around, and it can be many hundreds of meters, even a kilometer or so deep. And of course, they pull it out in sections. They pull out a section, break it, lay it down, put it in a storage shed, then drill out another ice core, and so on. So they end up with these things stored in sections, and then they can do analysis as a function of depth. And if they have some kind of a dating tool, they can determine what age that ice is at. Of course, older and older as you go deeper down into the ice core.

We''ve done this on Antarctica as well, all these dots are places where there have been ice cores. We''re going to be talking about the Vostok core, which is one of the deepest cores. This one was done by the Russians some years ago. So here is a record then with years before present on the x-axis. And in the upper panel are cores from Antarctica. And they are represented as delta D values. Well, here they''ve written it as delta 2H. But remember, 2H is what we''re calling deuterium. So this is the same as our delta D value. And then down on the lower panel is the delta O18 for a Greenland ice core. In fact, two of them, ingrip and grip. And you can use either isotope.')
,('119', '8', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 8 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
in recent years, there has been a significant rise in the use of renewable energy sources. this shift is crucial for sustainability, but there are
Original:
still challenges to overcome. for instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid

Corrected:
still challenges to overcome. For instance, the intermittency of solar and wind power can pose problems for the grid.

Prior Context:
s delta 2H. But remember, 2H is what we''re calling deuterium. So this is the same as our delta D value. And then down on the lower panel is the delta O18 for a Greenland ice core. In fact, two of them, ingrip and grip. And you can use either isotope.

Original:
It doesn''t really matter which pair you''re using. You get a similar signal for climate change. There isn''t a great deal of difference between using delta D and delta O18 for these purposes. So we can treat these. But the numbers are different. For example, for delta D, the delta values are much larger. They''re minus 460. 440, 420, whereas for oxygen, which fractionates less strongly, you get somewhat smaller. Notice that they''re all negative, though, which means that all these ice samples are isotopically lighter than the ocean. We expected that for two reasons. One is the water that evaporated from the ocean was lighter than the ocean water itself because of fractionation. And then this path fractionation, as the water moved from source to Antarctica or source to Greenland, you''ve made it even lighter by raining out a fraction of the water on the way to this final record location. Well, this gives us a rather nice time record. This is the modern era. This is today, if you like, and it looks like we have somewhat heavier isotopes than normal during the last 12, 15, 20,000 years ago. And of course, this is the Holocene period, the last interglacial. Prior to that, the isotope ratios were more negative, which means lighter. And we would interpret that, according to the dominant literature on this, we would interpret that as having more water removed between source and sample location, which means a lower temperature at the sample location. So the conventional wisdom is to interpret this as giving you a temperature record near the place where the record is kept, near the ice sheet. So colder, staying cold for about 100,000 years, then a brief interglacial, and then back into another long ice age with cold conditions, at least at the location of the ice sheet. Maybe cold other places as well, but what we''re measuring here, we think, is the temperature of the air over the ice sheet. where those snowflakes are being formed. This is Antarctica. And notice that both cores, done independently, show a very similar record. Even more surprising is that when you go to the northern hemisphere in Greenland, you get a record that, again, is fairly similar with interglacials, glacial periods, the Holocene. So this seems, although it''s a local measurement, it seems to be global in character. And this is a characteristic, then, of global climate, even though it''s a local temperature record. Questions on this?

', 'It doesn''t really matter which pair you''re using. You get a similar signal for climate change. There isn''t a great deal of difference between using delta D and delta O18 for these purposes, so we can treat these. But the numbers are different. For example, for delta D, the delta values are much larger: minus 460, 440, 420. Whereas for oxygen, which fractionates less strongly, you get somewhat smaller values. Notice that they''re all negative, though, which means that all these ice samples are isotopically lighter than the ocean. We expected that for two reasons. One is that the water that evaporated from the ocean was lighter than the ocean water itself because of fractionation. And then, this path fractionation, as the water moved from source to Antarctica or source to Greenland, made it even lighter by raining out a fraction of the water on the way to this final record location. Well, this gives us a rather nice time record. This is the modern era, today, if you like, and it looks like we have somewhat heavier isotopes than normal during the last 12, 15, 20,000 years ago. And of course, this is the Holocene period, the last interglacial. Prior to that, the isotope ratios were more negative, which means lighter. And we would interpret that, according to the dominant literature on this, as having more water removed between source and sample location, which means a lower temperature at the sample location. So the conventional wisdom is to interpret this as giving you a temperature record near the place where the record is kept, near the ice sheet. So colder, staying cold for about 100,000 years, then a brief interglacial, and then back into another long ice age with cold conditions, at least at the location of the ice sheet. Maybe cold other places as well, but what we''re measuring here, we think, is the temperature of the air over the ice sheet, where those snowflakes are being formed. This is Antarctica. And notice that both cores, done independently, show a very similar record. Even more surprising is that when you go to the northern hemisphere in Greenland, you get a record that, again, is fairly similar with interglacials, glacial periods, the Holocene. So this seems, although it''s a local measurement, to be global in character. And this is a characteristic, then, of global climate, even though it''s a local temperature record. Any questions on this?')
,('119', '9', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 9 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
hold on to your hats folks cause this is gona be a wild ride we’re about to uncover the truth about
Original:
some real shady business you might wanna sit down for this one it’s gonna blow your mind

Corrected:
some real shady business. You might want to sit down for this one; it’s going to blow your mind.

Prior Context:
interglacials, glacial periods, the Holocene. So this seems, although it''s a local measurement, it seems to be global in character. And this is a characteristic, then, of global climate, even though it''s a local temperature record. Questions on this?

Original:
I still find this astounding, that these different ice cores in different hemispheres give such similar records. Yeah, Jordan. STUDENT 2. Can you explain why the ice cores in the United States are so different? PROFESSOR RON SALTZMANN Yeah, because in this model, Let''s say this is at a fixed temperature here. And so if you just cooled the air a little bit between source and ice sheet, you would remove maybe half the water vapor and fractionate it accordingly. But if this were much colder, you would remove a much larger fraction, maybe 3 quarters of the water vapor. That would fractionate more strongly, and you''d get lighter isotopes falling on the ice sheet. So temperature, remember, controls how much water vapor you have in the atmosphere. So the more cooling you get, the more water vapor has to be removed. The more water vapor you remove, the more fractionation there''s been in the isotope ratio. OK. So it''s remarkable that these two local records of fractionation and temperature are so similar. They provide an accurate time record of the ice ages. One more thing that''s even more astounding, you can take those same ice cores and find tiny bubbles in them. As the snow fell, and more snow fell on top, and you finally compacted it into ice, there are little bubbles that trap samples of the ancient atmosphere. You can stick a probe into those ice bubbles and do a carbon dioxide concentration analysis to find out what the carbon dioxide concentration was in those ancient atmospheres. So here I''ve plotted up from the Vostok core alone. A record that goes, the time axis is switched here. This is today, and this is going back in time. This goes back a bit further. I''ve shown you data back to 400,000 years ago. Here''s the isotope record converted to a temperature. Isotope record converted to an equivalent temperature. And then in the top panel is the carbon dioxide concentration taken from the same location along the ice core. Here''s the modern day. At the top of the ice core, you had about 280 parts per million by volume, which is about the value we think is the pre-industrial carbon dioxide value for the Earth''s atmosphere. Then back into the last ice age, the last glacial maximum is here. You had much lower carbon dioxide concentrations, even below 200. parts per 1,000. It stayed low. In other words, it mirrored the temperatures quite remarkably. Carbon dioxide concentration and temperature are very similar.

', 'I still find this astounding, that these different ice cores in different hemispheres give such similar records. Yeah, Jordan. STUDENT 2: Can you explain why the ice cores in the United States are so different? PROFESSOR RON SALTZMANN: Yeah, because in this model, let''s say this is at a fixed temperature here. And so if you just cooled the air a little bit between source and ice sheet, you would remove maybe half the water vapor and fractionate it accordingly. But if this were much colder, you would remove a much larger fraction, maybe three quarters of the water vapor. That would fractionate more strongly, and you''d get lighter isotopes falling on the ice sheet. So temperature, remember, controls how much water vapor you have in the atmosphere. So the more cooling you get, the more water vapor has to be removed. The more water vapor you remove, the more fractionation there''s been in the isotope ratio. OK. So it''s remarkable that these two local records of fractionation and temperature are so similar. They provide an accurate time record of the ice ages. One more thing that''s even more astounding, you can take those same ice cores and find tiny bubbles in them. As the snow fell and more snow fell on top, and you finally compacted it into ice, there are little bubbles that trap samples of the ancient atmosphere. You can stick a probe into those ice bubbles and do a carbon dioxide concentration analysis to find out what the carbon dioxide concentration was in those ancient atmospheres. So here I''ve plotted up from the Vostok core alone, a record that goes, the time axis is switched here. This is today, and this is going back in time. This goes back a bit further. I''ve shown you data back to 400,000 years ago. Here''s the isotope record converted to a temperature. Isotope record converted to an equivalent temperature. And then in the top panel is the carbon dioxide concentration taken from the same location along the ice core. Here''s the modern day. At the top of the ice core, you had about 280 parts per million by volume, which is about the value we think is the pre-industrial carbon dioxide value for the Earth''s atmosphere. Then back into the last ice age, the last glacial maximum is here. You had much lower carbon dioxide concentrations, even below 200 parts per 1,000. It stayed low. In other words, it mirrored the temperatures quite remarkably. Carbon dioxide concentration and temperature are very similar.')
,('119', '10', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 10 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
so here’s the dealio folks we are about to diving into some real tough issues but first let’s address the
Original:
elephant in the room why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom

Corrected:
elephant in the room: Why are people saying it’s all doom and gloom?

Prior Context:
t glacial maximum is here. You had much lower carbon dioxide concentrations, even below 200. parts per 1,000. It stayed low. In other words, it mirrored the temperatures quite remarkably. Carbon dioxide concentration and temperature are very similar.

Original:
We have a very similar record, at least over this period we call the Pleistocene, with the ice ages coming and going and coming and going. We''ll talk a lot about this coming up in the global warming, but at a very minimum, this reinforces our idea of the importance of CO2 in climate. When you had high CO2, you had warmer climates. When you had low CO2, you had colder climates, perfectly fitting with our idea of the greenhouse effect and CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Now, there''s also some argument, though, about cause and effect. Which comes first? Which leads and lags? We''ll get into that a little bit next week. But for the time being, I would take this at face value and just say that it reinforces the connection between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Now, I want to talk about other kinds of sediments. On land, you can walk around and see rocks like this. I''m sure you have. Rocks that seem to have a layered structure. Most of the time when you see such rock patterns, you''re looking at some kind of evidence of ancient climate change. One kind of climate allowed sediments in a lake to look like this. A change in climate changed it to that. A change back gave sediments like this. This is easy to speculate about, because you see lots of sedimentary layered rocks like that. It''s not so easy to figure out what exactly this means in terms of climate. But it''s a start to be able to see such stratification on land, and just imagine in a vague way that, hmm, this may be evidence of changing climates in the ancient world. How many have been to Grand Canyon? Well, you see something like this. And lots of layered rocks. And what you should be thinking of when you see rocks like this is ancient climate change. These changes probably are telling us something about changes in the ancient climate of the Earth. But again, they''re rather difficult to sort out, because we don''t always know the environment in which those sediments were laid down. So we''re going to do something similar to this, but in the ocean. where the ocean sediments have had a rather constant sedimentation rate. And therefore, we can do a little easier job of interpreting if we can get a sample of that. So the way we do that is to do deep ocean drilling. You take a ship that has a drilling rig on it, and you lower that. that drill bit down to the ocean floor, and then start pushing into the soft sediments.

', 'We have a very similar record, at least over this period we call the Pleistocene, with the ice ages coming and going. We''ll talk a lot about this coming up in the global warming, but at a very minimum, this reinforces our idea of the importance of CO2 in climate. When you had high CO2, you had warmer climates. When you had low CO2, you had colder climates, perfectly fitting with our idea of the greenhouse effect and CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

Now, there''s also some argument, though, about cause and effect. Which comes first? Which leads and lags? We''ll get into that a little bit next week. But for the time being, I would take this at face value and just say that it reinforces the connection between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature.

Now, I want to talk about other kinds of sediments. On land, you can walk around and see rocks like this. I''m sure you have. Rocks that seem to have a layered structure. Most of the time when you see such rock patterns, you''re looking at some kind of evidence of ancient climate change. One kind of climate allowed sediments in a lake to look like this. A change in climate changed it to that. A change back gave sediments like this. This is easy to speculate about because you see lots of sedimentary layered rocks like that. It''s not so easy to figure out what exactly this means in terms of climate. But it''s a start to be able to see such stratification on land and just imagine in a vague way that, hmm, this may be evidence of changing climates in the ancient world.

How many have been to the Grand Canyon? Well, you see something like this. And lots of layered rocks. And what you should be thinking of when you see rocks like this is ancient climate change. These changes probably are telling us something about changes in the ancient climate of the Earth. But again, they''re rather difficult to sort out because we don''t always know the environment in which those sediments were laid down.

So we''re going to do something similar to this, but in the ocean, where the ocean sediments have had a rather constant sedimentation rate. And therefore, we can do a little easier job of interpreting if we can get a sample of that. So the way we do that is to do deep ocean drilling. You take a ship that has a drilling rig on it and you lower that drill bit down to the ocean floor and then start pushing into the soft sediments.')
,('119', '11', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 11 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
everybody’s talking about climate change and global warming but what’s the real story what are the actual facts
Original:
well let me tell you it’s not all sunshine and rainbows there’s a lot of misinformation out there

Corrected:
Well, let me tell you, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

Prior Context:
nterpreting if we can get a sample of that. So the way we do that is to do deep ocean drilling. You take a ship that has a drilling rig on it, and you lower that. that drill bit down to the ocean floor, and then start pushing into the soft sediments.

Original:
And then after a while, as you go deeper and deeper, you''re drilling into rather solid rock. But it''s all representing deep ocean sediments. And they look like this. They''re about the same size. But they''re made of rock. And here''s an archive of hundreds and thousands of such deep sea cores that have been drilled out and stored. So we have a lot of these samples. We can do a lot of work with them. And primarily, these deep sea sediments are comprised of calcium carbonate. They''ve got other things in them, but calcium carbonate, CaCO3. CaCO3, it has oxygen in it. Besides calcium and carbon, it has oxygen in it. And they''re mostly the remains of shells produced by microorganisms. Phytoplankton, mostly, in the ocean. And when the organism makes its shell, it gets its oxygen from the oxygen on water. So there stored in this calcium carbonate is a record of the isotope ratio of oxygen of O18 to O16 in ocean water, because the organism got its oxygen from seawater in order to make that shell. I''m going to show you a deep sea sediment core, RC13-259. The one right there. Here is Antarctica, Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Australia, New Zealand. And the deep sea sediment core in the ocean is here. And we''re going to compare that with the Vostok ice core, which is there. So what we''ve done is take samples of the oxygen from the calcium carbonate. We expect that sample of oxygen is going to be slightly heavier isotopically than the ocean water, because when the organism makes its shell, it slightly prefers the heavier isotope. In addition to that, though, we expect it to change with climate, either because the temperature effect on how the organism makes its shell might be coming through, or The isotope ratio in the water itself might be dominating the signal. The first papers on this thought it was this. Now there''s an almost universal agreement in the scientific literature that when you get oxygen-18 data from ice cores, you''re mostly getting a measure of the oxygen in the ocean water. And that''s telling you something about the glacial ice mass, how much water has been stored up on land in the glaciers. So most of the literature now is purporting this idea, that it''s mostly sensitive to continental ice mass. That means it''s going to be heavy during an ice age. Let me explain that with a cartoon. So in a period like today, an interglacial period, the oceans are full of water. This is our reference state today, by the way, for 018.

', 'And then, after a while, as you go deeper and deeper, you''re drilling into rather solid rock. But it''s all representing deep ocean sediments. And they look like this. They''re about the same size, but they''re made of rock. And here''s an archive of hundreds and thousands of such deep-sea cores that have been drilled out and stored. So we have a lot of these samples. We can do a lot of work with them. And primarily, these deep-sea sediments are comprised of calcium carbonate. They''ve got other things in them, but calcium carbonate, CaCO3. CaCO3, it has oxygen in it. Besides calcium and carbon, it has oxygen in it. And they''re mostly the remains of shells produced by microorganisms. Phytoplankton, mostly in the ocean. And when the organism makes its shell, it gets its oxygen from the oxygen in water. So there stored in this calcium carbonate is a record of the isotope ratio of oxygen of O18 to O16 in ocean water because the organism got its oxygen from seawater to make that shell. I''m going to show you a deep-sea sediment core, RC13-259. The one right there. Here is Antarctica, Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Australia, New Zealand. And the deep-sea sediment core in the ocean is here. And we''re going to compare that with the Vostok ice core, which is there. So what we''ve done is take samples of the oxygen from the calcium carbonate. We expect that the sample of oxygen is going to be slightly heavier isotopically than the ocean water because when the organism makes its shell, it slightly prefers the heavier isotope. In addition to that, though, we expect it to change with climate, either because the temperature effect on how the organism makes its shell might be coming through or the isotope ratio in the water itself might be dominating the signal. The first papers on this thought it was this. Now there''s an almost universal agreement in the scientific literature that when you get oxygen-18 data from ice cores, you''re mostly getting a measure of the oxygen in the ocean water. And that''s telling you something about the glacial ice mass, how much water has been stored up on land in the glaciers. So most of the literature now is purporting this idea, that it''s mostly sensitive to continental ice mass. That means it''s going to be heavy during an ice age. Let me explain that with a cartoon. So in a period like today, an interglacial period, the oceans are full of water. This is our reference state today, by the way, for O18.')
,('119', '12', '2012-04-05', 'text_correction', 'Your role is to help the user with whatever task they give you, to the best of your ability.', 'Please read the provided Original section and Prior Context section (if not empty) to understand the authors intention. 
Now we''ll focus on the fixes required in the Original section:
    - Pinpoint any parts that are mistranscribed. If there is any ambiguity in what could have been meant, please think about what words would make the most sense in each situation. 
    - Fix any punctuation issues, including missing paragraphs breaks (single or multi-line as necessary).

Notes:
    - This is part 12 of 15 total parts in the document.
    - The Prior Context is just so you understand what the author was talking about.
    - Focus on fixing the Original section.', 'Prior Context:
and we''ll get to why it''s not in a second but here''s here are the uh the key pieces that are
Original:
gong to be busted all over the media reducing the deficit cutting spending

Corrected:
going to be blasted all over the media: reducing the deficit, cutting spending

Prior Context:
in todays world we are surrounded by all sorts of technology it’s literally everywhere but have you ever stopped
Original:
and wondered how does this all work how is it even possible i’ll tell you it’s mind blowing

Corrected:
and wondered, "How does this all work? How is it even possible?" I’ll tell you, it’s mind-blowing.

Prior Context:
to continental ice mass. That means it''s going to be heavy during an ice age. Let me explain that with a cartoon. So in a period like today, an interglacial period, the oceans are full of water. This is our reference state today, by the way, for 018.

Original:
During a glacial period, you have lowered sea level by evaporating water from the ocean and not returning it. Remember here, you remember the Quinnipiac field trip, right? You''re evaporating water from the ocean, you''re raining it out over land, and it''s running right back into the oceans in rivers. No net change. The hydrologic cycle is just running in steady state, the oceans are staying at the same level, and so on. However, during a glacial period, you''ve evaporated some of that water and not returned it. You stored it as a large ice sheet on the continents. We know that that water is lighter isotopically than the ocean. So you stored light water on the continents, which means that the oceans are now isotopically heavier than they were before. And that''s the signal we hope to see in the deep sea sediment cores. So here''s the comparison. Vostok delta D is plotted in the upper panel, and the scale is on the left. This deep sea sediment core, which is represented as O18, delta O18 is plotted on the right. And it''s the lower panel. And the time scales are matched up. So we can go back 400,000 years. into the past for both of these records. And notice how they line up, but the signals are opposite. So during an ice age, the delta D is more negative, whereas the deep sea sediment core is more positive. Because you''ve stored light water on land, made the oceans heavier, and that signal is coming through. So you see, this is perhaps even more remarkable, because we have two very different kinds of records, a deep sea sediment core and an ice core, whose isotopic signals are driven by somewhat different physics. And yet, they both give us a corresponding similar record of the advance and retreat of these ice ages. It''s a rather remarkable That''s why these isotopes are so valuable in giving us a quantitative understanding of the Pleistocene period. Any questions on that? So you''ll have to think about this, because I know it''s a complicated subject, but these notes are posted. So part of the story then, and this is not a surprise, if you put all that ice up on land, you will have lowered sea level. And so here''s a record from physical measurements going around various places, understanding from the nature of the shoreline where sea level was at various times in the past. This is thousands of years ago. And at the last glacial maximum, which is here, sea level was about 120 meters below where it is today. And you find that same thing no matter where you measure.

', 'During a glacial period, you have lowered sea level by evaporating water from the ocean and not returning it. Remember the Quinnipiac field trip, right? You''re evaporating water from the ocean, raining it out over land, and it''s running right back into the oceans in rivers. No net change. The hydrologic cycle is just running in steady state, the oceans are staying at the same level, and so on. However, during a glacial period, you''ve evaporated some of that water and not returned it. You stored it as a large ice sheet on the continents. We know that the water stored on the continents is lighter isotopically than the ocean. So you stored light water on the continents, which means that the oceans are now isotopically heavier than they were before. And that''s the signal we hope to see in the deep-sea sediment cores. So here''s the comparison. Vostok delta D is plotted in the upper panel, and the scale is on the left. This deep-sea sediment core, represented as O18, delta O18, is plotted on the right in the lower panel. And the time scales are matched up, so we can go back 400,000 years into the past for both of these records. Notice how they line up, but the signals are opposite. During an ice age, the delta D is more negative, whereas the deep-sea sediment core is more positive because you''ve stored light water on land, making the oceans heavier, and that signal is coming through. So you see, this is perhaps even more remarkable because we have two very different kinds of records: a deep-sea sediment core and an ice core, whose isotopic signals are driven by somewhat different physics. Yet they both give us a corresponding, similar record of the advance and retreat of these ice ages. It''s rather remarkable. That''s why these isotopes are so valuable in giving us a quantitative understanding of the Pleistocene period. Any questions on that? So you''ll have to think about this because I know it''s a complicated subject, but these notes are posted. Part of the story then, and this is not a surprise, if you put all that ice up on land, you will have lowered sea level. So here''s a record from physical measurements going around various places, understanding from the nature of the shoreline where sea level was at various times in the past. This is thousands of years ago. And at the last glacial maximum, which is here, sea level was about 120 meters below where it is today. And you find that same thing no matter where you measure.')
) as res (id, part, prompt_date, task, system_prompt, instruction, user_context, response) 
LIMIT 30
) x;