Stephon is writing an essay in which he is comparing and contrasting the characters of Manjiro from Heart of a Samurai and William, the narrator of The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind. He places some of his research in this table. Manjiro: wants to become a samurai. Both: blank. William: wants to build his own windmill.

Which detail most belongs under the "Both” heading of the table?
A. read books
B. enjoy fishing
C. have dreams
D. attend school

the answers are:

1. dolores driscoll - b. first person minor

dolores is a minor character who happens to be driving the bus at the time of the accident. she narrates picking up each of the children and her last memory is the children being thrown around the bus.

2. billy ansel - a. first person major

billy loses his twins in the accident. he tells his own story, how he witnessed the accident and how he tried to the rescuers. he is a major character, as he is at the center of the story.

3. mitchell stephens - c. first person observer

mitchell enters the story after the accident. he is a lawyer who learns about the accident based on other characters observations. though he tells the story from a first person perspective, he is just an observer.

as for matcthing the message or lesson posted with the person who said them:

1."obviously, you can't control everything, but you are obliged to take care of the few things you can. i'm an optimist basically who acts like a pessimist. on principle. just in case." - dolores driscoll

2. "i could no longer believe even in life. . for me now the only reality was death." - billy ansel

- "the answers are a and b.  

when cullen speaks of planting while others reap, and standing "abject and mute," he is speaking about the racial injustices present in american society. as these injustices have changed over time, the american identity  has also shifted. those changes are, in turn, reflected in american literature."

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this

im sorry im not learning about this stuff right now.