I dont even know what that title means either. i usually write something first and then give it a title afterwards. you know, once theres actually something worth naming. this time, i decided to go things backwards and come up with a title before i even knew what i was going to write about. getting too creative, right? to be honest, my titles dont usually have much to do with what i write. i come up with the most random nonsense and attach it to something even more unrelated. this is no different. anyway, i went to visit my grandmother yesterday. she pointed out that ive got considerably more gray har than i did the last time she saw me. i guess it was too noticeable that we had a whole discussion about it. she even told me i looked older than her with all that gray hair. which was funny, i suppose. imagine being told youve managed to look older than your own grandmother. quite an achievement. i didnt like that comment, obviously. not because i have some great hatred for getting older or looking older. i dont really care about that. it doesnt mean anything to me. i just hate the gray hair. thats it. nothing deeper about it. i might get some hair dye and get rid of it. solved the issue. now, the bald part of the title has nothing to do with that. ive also been considering going bald, or perhaps getting a buzzcut. my hair is thick and heavy, and despite not it not being long, it feels like ive got an entire carpet sitting on my head, sometimes i get this uncomfortable tension around my scalp, and ive started wondering whether i should just get rid of it all. maybe a buzzcut would help, maybe id regret it immediately. i’ll definitely forget about the entire idea tomorrow. speaking of my grandmother, she also decided to put some oil in my hear while i as there. some mixture of hers, which she put on my scalp and massaged it while making fun of me. i asked her if i could take some home she said yes. so now ive got a little supply of whatever shes been putting together, and ive been using it whenever i get one of those headaches. i actually like it. its quite relaxing, and it seems to help. although i figure the massage has something to do with that. either way, ill take it.

So thats that. got mocked by my grandmother, got some mysterious hair oil, and left with a new title i still dont understand.

Sincerely, A potential bald man.

The title says it does because I’m driving home with the windows down and I’m pretty sure that voice to text is going to butcher whatever I say and I kind of don’t care about editing it. I have slept past 3 AM the last two nights in a row and even though I have technically gotten seven hours of sleep, I understand that realistically I have slept like shit. On top of that I know that I have not been eating well and so I understand that these things will all factor into this current depression, along with the stress from life, recovering from this cold, and other life events that have happened. And so I’m fairly confident that this will pass and I just need to take care of myself and everything will be OK. Now that being said, I do not find myself having a shortage of things that I plead my finger towards in terms of trying to attribute this current emotional low. It feels so infantilizing to call it an emotional low compared to this complete sense of defeat and wanting to just be able to fucking put all of this down for a bit. But that is what I said, and I am not going to edit this now that I have said those words. I know that one of the things that I am sad by God that doesn’t even make sense grammatically fuck it, but yesterday with Halloween, I brought my camera off, and I took a lot of photos of friends and they saw how nice my photos were coming out and they wanted more and more photos of them. We didn’t even take that many group photos, and I didn’t really get many photos of myself. Thankfully, Jay did take some photos of me, but I feel pretty ungrateful for saying this, but they were horribly framed, and the lighting was terrible, you can barely see me. I’m completely covered with shadows, and there is no detailed to the photos, but either way I ended up staying up for about four hours, going through the raw photos and editing them, and I made some pretty cool photos of my friends, but the most I was able to do for myself, was make the photos essentially visible, and even then you can’t really make me out in them. And it kind of hurts because the photos of my friends came out really amazing, but I don’t really have too much to show for it, for myself at least. I have some photos of me, but a lot of them are kind of shitty or really lazy in comparison. And they are all really happy with the photos I think. And I remember one of the things was G was one of the people that had a time constraint, and so we were kind of in a bit of a rush and on the clock, and she kept asking for other photos of her because she really liked the way they were coming out, but that essentially took away from time from me being able to have photos and group photos, and so when it finally got to my turn, everything was super rushed, and it felt like it was just trying to be done to get it out of the way. And it feels like a little bit of one of those things where I’m not really upset at her for it, but it’s more just she spoke up and an open mouth gets fed, and a closed mouth does not. But on top of it, this is one of those cases where I feel like suffering from success, in terms of me having some skill or something that I’ve worked on, and it is something that benefits other people more than it, benefits me, and it is something that I would like to also be on the receiving end of if I’m being completely honest. Like in this case, it is taking photos of other people and posing at the editing and all of that stuff, But it’s also things like being emotionally, mature and handling certain conversations or navigating situations in certain ways. It is one of those things where Both benefit, but work is disproportionate. I also feel like my hands are tied because J did not need to take photos of me, and I am very thankful that she did. But at the same time I feel like if I complain about the photos or how high ultimately don’t feel like they were up to the bar of what I was hoping for, or that I was able to do for others, it will only make her feel bad and be less willing to do it in the future, which is understandable. I am so it just feels like I kind of sit here and suffer quietly with no real way to vocalize my want. And so I don’t really know what to do about that and it just makes me feel trapped.

Also, today it took me 3 ½ hours to finish my powerlifting training. And I still didn’t even do the weights I was prescribed. I feel like such a weak bitch. I feel so incredibly discouraged and demotivated because I have been not able to keep up with the training while sick, and it feels like every time I start to give it another good attempt or something, I can’t really keep up almost. And so it feels like I’m not making any progress, and it feels like I just don’t have that dog in me. And it makes me feel like I’m trying like I really am, I put a lot of time into it. More often than I really don’t have much in me, but I still try. I spent over an hour taking notes on the first video he gave me, i’ve tried to find a coach on my own, and I’m spending a good amount of money on it. and honestly way more often than not I don’t have the energy or motivation to do anything. It’s been months now I think and I have trash and random things on my kitchen counter that should be put away by now. I have so many small little things just piling up and I don’t have the energy to even do tiny things like throw away, trash here and there, or just take a second to fucking wipe some hair off of the counter. I have mess after a mess and small little thing of small little thing and they all just pile up, there’s laundry that needs to be done, there are things that need to be moved or put away and even good little memories like these photos that I need to find a way to display. And they just accumulate and accumulate and I can’t bring myself to get them done. I haven’t vacuumed upstairs in God knows how long, let alone mopping. And I’m tired. I really really really wish that I wasn’t like this. I wish I had the energy to do these things, but obviously I don’t. And so I really am trying hard. But that’s not enough. It feels like. Sometimes it feels like I need more than what I can give for so many different little things. And God I’m tired. and I feel like such a pathetic bitch for all of these small little things like just moving something from point A to point B and I feel like there are so many people that work harder than I do and would kill to trade places with me, but instead here I am struggling to do these basic things. I tried to stay away from self hate because I know that it is very painfully natural to me and it is something that I’ve worked really hard to move away from, but why did God make it so easy? Why was I raised in a way that taught me that it is so natural to hate myself. I’m trying really hard like I feel so pathetic for saying this, but I’m trying to cry saying these words out loud because it’s not like I’m not showing up for myself. I really am. Like I have never worked so much at something as I have for trying to overcome my childhood and to be able to lead a happy or normal life. But sometimes in days like this, it really just feels like I just might not be able to do enough. I don’t know what to do. And it’s such a shitty thing that I think about how I have squandered this life, and so many opportunities that I have been given, but I also understand that it’s not like you could have the good things without the bad and you could argue that someone else put in my situation from the start would struggle in a lot of the same ways that I have. But at the same time, what am I to do. I feel like it’s too early in my mind to be kind to myself already, but I have finally cleaned up all of the shit from the bathroom counter that has been here for months. And I could both be hateful at myself to think about how much this took for me to finally do something so simple and arguably, trivial, but I could also be kind to myself and recognize by virtue of the fact that it is taking me so long that this is something that I have struggled with, and so I am proud of myself for doing this. And it’s not like I just have to prioritize this or have to thought about it, like some of the creative projects that I wanted to do, but this is something that I have wanted to do and I’ve even tried chicken away at. But finally here I have actually done it. and so I am going to choose to be proud of myself for it.

FICTIONAL WHAT IF: Part III- What If Angelus Had Killed Giles Instead of Jenny?

An Alternate History of the Buffyverse, 1998–2004

Part I: The Death of Rupert Giles (1998)

Of all the cruelties Angelus inflicted upon Buffy Summers, the murder of Jenny Calendar was among the most consequential. Jenny's death deprived Rupert Giles of the woman he loved, denied Willow Rosenberg a mentor in the magical arts, and nearly destroyed the only surviving means of restoring Angel's soul. Yet it was not necessarily the most devastating murder Angelus could have committed. By February 1998, he had come to understand something about Buffy that his centuries of experience had not prepared him for: the Slayer's strength came not simply from her supernatural abilities, but from the extraordinary collection of people who loved her. Her mother provided a semblance of ordinary domestic life, her friends reminded her that she was more than a weapon, and Giles had become something considerably more important than the Watcher assigned to supervise her. He was the one adult who understood the burden she carried, who knew precisely what she was capable of doing, and who loved her without requiring that she be either an ordinary teenager or an obedient instrument. Angelus recognized this relationship, and in the final week of February 1998, he made a different decision. Rather than murdering Jenny Calendar at Sunnydale High School, he hunted down Rupert Giles. He did not kill him quickly. The vampire took considerable pleasure in explaining the situation to his former captor, observing that Giles had spent years teaching Buffy how to destroy monsters without ever recognizing that the most dangerous monster in her life was the one she loved. When Buffy discovered Giles's body, Angelus had arranged it behind the librarian's desk, surrounded by the familiar books and papers that had occupied so many of their evenings together. His glasses rested neatly beside an open volume, and a handwritten note lay between its pages. It contained only four words: You were too late.

The immediate consequences were catastrophic, although not in the way Angelus intended. Buffy attempted to kill him within forty-eight hours, pursuing him into an abandoned warehouse without backup and nearly dying when Drusilla and several other vampires joined the confrontation. Xander and Willow managed to extract her, but the experience left an impression on both of them. Buffy had stopped fighting intelligently. She was no longer concerned with surviving an encounter, protecting innocent people, or even defeating Angelus in any strategically meaningful sense. She wanted him dead, and if accomplishing that meant dying herself, she was prepared to accept the bargain. Joyce, still unaware of the full extent of her daughter's supernatural life, watched Buffy become increasingly withdrawn, while Willow found herself confronting an even more frightening responsibility. Jenny Calendar had survived, and with her survived the research necessary to perform the Ritual of Restoration. Jenny understood that the curse would restore Angel's conscience, but she also recognized a possibility that Angelus had failed to anticipate: Buffy might be psychologically incapable of distinguishing between the demon that murdered Giles and the man who would inherit the memories of that murder. For several days, Jenny hesitated. Her own deception concerning her Kalderash ancestry had already compromised the trust of the people closest to Giles, and she understood that Buffy might regard the restoration as an unforgivable act of mercy toward his murderer. Eventually Willow convinced her that the ritual was not an act of forgiveness. It was the removal of one of the most dangerous vampires in the world.

Angel's soul was restored in March 1998, several months before the catastrophe that, in the original history, would culminate in the awakening of Acathla. Jenny performed the ritual with Willow's assistance, establishing an early magical partnership that would profoundly shape the following years. Angel collapsed as the curse took hold, emerging from his demonic consciousness into the terrible awareness of what he had done. He remembered Giles's death in perfect detail. He remembered the conversations, the physical violence, the deliberate humiliation, and the satisfaction he had taken in leaving the body for Buffy to discover. When he attempted to approach her, Buffy struck him hard enough to throw him across the room. She did not stake him, although she would spend years privately wondering whether that restraint had been an act of mercy or weakness. Instead, she told him to leave Sunnydale and never return. Angel complied. He eventually settled in Los Angeles, where his efforts to assist the helpless developed into an organization broadly resembling Angel Investigations, but the relationship that had once defined both of their lives was finished. Buffy never resumed her romance with Angel, never experienced their brief reconciliation, and never faced the particular heartbreak of sending a newly restored Angel into a hell dimension to prevent the destruction of the world. In this timeline, Angelus never awakened Acathla at all. The world was saved several months earlier than it should have been. The price was Rupert Giles.

The most important consequence of Angelus's defeat was initially overlooked. Without the crisis surrounding Acathla, there was no second confrontation that brought Kendra Young back to Sunnydale, no attack on the school library, and no encounter in which Drusilla hypnotized and murdered the Jamaican Slayer. Kendra survived the spring of 1998 and returned to the care of Sam Zabuto, her Watcher. This seemingly minor development would eventually prove almost as consequential as Giles's death. The supernatural succession had already passed from Buffy to Kendra following Buffy's brief death at the hands of the Master in 1997, and so long as Kendra remained alive, no third Slayer would be called. Faith Lehane, whose eventual relationship with Buffy would have radically altered the balance of power in Sunnydale, remained an ordinary teenager in Boston. She never discovered the supernatural world, never became Richard Wilkins's surrogate daughter, and never developed the dangerous mixture of intimacy and rivalry that characterized her relationship with Buffy. The Mayor would therefore face an entirely different opposition when the time came to complete his Ascension. More importantly, the Watchers Council retained a Slayer whose training had been almost entirely within its control. With Giles dead, it now possessed something it had never enjoyed in the original history: a plausible means of replacing Buffy Summers without losing access to an active Slayer.

Part II: The Fracturing of the Scoobies (1998–1999)

The Watchers Council responded to Giles's murder with expressions of regret that Buffy regarded as profoundly inadequate. Quentin Travers dispatched a replacement Watcher, authorized the transfer of Giles's surviving research materials to Council custody, and instructed Buffy to resume her normal training schedule as quickly as possible. The replacement, a senior field Watcher named Eleanor Ashcroft, arrived in Sunnydale in April and immediately discovered that Buffy had little interest in acquiring another supervisor. Ashcroft was capable, intelligent, and considerably less foolish than the Watchers Buffy had previously encountered, but she regarded Giles's emotional attachment to his Slayer as a professional failing. Her reports to London described Buffy as dangerously undisciplined, excessively dependent upon civilian associates, and psychologically compromised by the murder of her predecessor. These assessments were not entirely without foundation. Buffy had become more reckless, frequently disregarded tactical advice, and reacted angrily to even reasonable criticism of her decisions. What Ashcroft failed to appreciate was that Giles had earned the authority he exercised over Buffy through years of trust. Simply arriving with institutional credentials did not entitle another adult to inherit that authority. Buffy continued patrolling, but she increasingly ignored Council directives, refused to surrender Giles's private notebooks, and treated Jenny Calendar as her primary source of supernatural expertise. The Council interpreted this behavior as insubordination. Buffy interpreted its response as confirmation that the organization regarded Giles as a replaceable employee rather than a human being.

Willow's development accelerated dramatically during this period. With Jenny alive, she had access to a practicing technopagan who understood both the capabilities and dangers of magic, and who possessed a more sophisticated approach to supernatural research than the eclectic methods Giles had typically employed. Jenny began teaching Willow how to construct protective wards, distinguish legitimate magical traditions from dangerous fabrications, and recognize the physical and psychological consequences of drawing upon supernatural power. By the autumn of 1998, Willow was already capable of performing spells that would have been beyond her abilities in the original timeline. Her growing competence fundamentally altered the distribution of responsibility among the Scoobies. Giles had previously served as the group's principal researcher, strategist, and adult authority. With his death, those responsibilities were divided among Buffy, Jenny, and Willow, none of whom possessed the full range of qualities that had made Giles effective. Buffy increasingly monopolized tactical decisions, Jenny handled the more difficult occult research, and Willow became responsible for the group's expanding magical capabilities. Xander continued to provide practical assistance, but he felt increasingly marginalized by the concentration of supernatural power in the hands of his friends. Cordelia, meanwhile, began questioning whether Sunnydale could ever offer a life that did not revolve around imminent catastrophe. The group remained loyal to Buffy, but its old informality had disappeared. What had once been a collection of friends meeting in a school library was becoming something closer to a private paramilitary organization.

The confrontation between Buffy and the Council intensified in January 1999, when the organization attempted to administer the traditional Cruciamentum on her eighteenth birthday. Without Giles to supervise the preparations, Travers authorized Ashcroft to proceed according to established procedures. Buffy was surreptitiously drugged, temporarily deprived of her Slayer abilities, and placed into a controlled confrontation with a vampire. The test went disastrously wrong. Jenny recognized the effects of the suppressive compound and alerted Willow, who located Buffy through a tracking spell before the vampire could kill her. Buffy escaped, but her discovery that the Council had deliberately stripped her of the powers necessary to defend herself permanently destroyed what little faith she retained in the institution. When Travers arrived to investigate, he attempted to characterize the ordeal as a longstanding rite of passage intended to evaluate a Slayer's resourcefulness. Buffy responded by informing him that if another Watcher ever attempted to drug her, she would treat that individual as a hostile combatant. Travers dismissed the threat as adolescent defiance and began preparations to remove Ashcroft from Sunnydale. In London, however, a more radical proposal was gaining support. Since Buffy was no longer the active link in the Slayer succession, some Watchers argued that she could be deprived of formal recognition altogether. Kendra Young, they reasoned, remained an entirely legitimate Slayer, and unlike Buffy, she could still be relied upon to follow instructions. By March, the Council had begun discussing whether Sunnydale might be better protected by transferring Kendra there permanently.

The Council's internal dispute unfolded at precisely the moment when the Scoobies most needed a coherent strategy. Richard Wilkins III, the apparently mild-mannered Mayor of Sunnydale, was approaching the culmination of a century-long effort to transform himself into a pure demon. Giles had spent years investigating the town's supernatural history and had accumulated numerous fragments concerning the unusual longevity of its municipal government. He had also developed a habit of treating seemingly unrelated supernatural events as potential components of a larger pattern. Without him, those fragments remained scattered among notebooks, private letters, and records seized by the Watchers Council. Jenny suspected that Wilkins was involved in occult activity, but her attention was divided between protecting Buffy from the Council and expanding Willow's magical education. Buffy, meanwhile, became preoccupied with an increasing number of vampires operating around the abandoned industrial sections of Sunnydale. She failed to recognize that these creatures were not acting independently. They were being recruited, supplied, and coordinated by intermediaries working for the Mayor. Wilkins had learned enough about the Slayer to understand that confronting her directly would be unnecessary. He could simply keep her occupied until his Ascension became irreversible. In the absence of Faith, he lacked the personal relationship that would eventually become his greatest vulnerability in the original timeline. He compensated by relying more heavily on secrecy, financial resources, and an impressive network of human collaborators.

Part III: Graduation Day (1999)

The catastrophe of May 1999 would later be remembered as the Sunnydale Ascension, although contemporary news reports employed a bewildering variety of descriptions, including earthquake, terrorist attack, industrial disaster, and mass hallucination. By then Kendra had been transferred to Sunnydale under Council supervision, ostensibly to assist Buffy in investigating a suspected demonic convergence. The relationship between the two Slayers remained cordial but increasingly strained. Kendra admired Buffy's courage and unconventional resourcefulness, but she was disturbed by the intensity of Buffy's hostility toward the Watchers. Buffy respected Kendra's competence but interpreted her willingness to follow Council instructions as evidence that she had never been permitted to develop independent judgment. Both were partly correct, and their inability to establish a functioning partnership became a serious tactical liability. When Jenny finally identified the Mayor's Ascension ritual, the Council ordered the two Slayers to abandon their independent investigations and assist a team of Watchers preparing a binding ceremony. The Council's specialists believed that Wilkins could be contained during the transformation, and they regarded Buffy's proposal to evacuate the graduating class and rig the school with explosives as unnecessarily provocative. The disagreement became bitter enough that Buffy threatened to proceed without authorization. In the end, an uneasy compromise was reached: Buffy would coordinate an evacuation if the ceremony failed, while Kendra would protect the Watchers performing the binding. Neither understood that the Mayor had already acquired sufficient power to defeat the ritual. There was no plan to draw him into a confined space where explosives could be used against him, and no organized student army waiting to confront the vampires accompanying his transformation.

The Mayor completed his Ascension shortly after the beginning of Sunnydale High School's graduation ceremony. The binding ritual failed within seconds. Two Watchers were killed almost immediately, and the surviving practitioners discovered that their protective wards were insufficient to restrain a demon of Wilkins's magnitude. As the Mayor transformed into the enormous serpent-like creature known as Olvikan, the graduating students broke into a panicked stampede. Buffy managed to organize several groups of students and direct them toward the athletic fields, but the absence of a coordinated evacuation plan proved disastrous. The Mayor consumed dozens of people in the initial minutes, while his vampire auxiliaries attacked fleeing civilians around the school perimeter. Kendra, abandoning the failed ceremony, joined Buffy in an effort to protect the survivors. Together they managed to inflict considerable damage on the demon, but neither possessed a weapon capable of destroying it. Jenny and Willow attempted to disrupt the transformation magically, succeeding only in triggering a violent backlash that left Jenny unconscious and nearly killed Willow. By the time emergency services arrived, large sections of the school had been destroyed, hundreds of people were dead or missing, and the Mayor had escaped into the network of tunnels beneath Sunnydale. Buffy survived, as did Kendra, Willow, Xander, and most of their immediate associates, but their victory was purely defensive. They had prevented the complete annihilation of the graduating class without accomplishing the objective that mattered most. Richard Wilkins had become a pure demon.

The following eleven days transformed Sunnydale from a small California town with an unusually high mortality rate into the center of an unprecedented national emergency. Wilkins emerged repeatedly from the subterranean passages surrounding the Hellmouth, destroying buildings, consuming livestock and human beings, and overwhelming police and National Guard units attempting to contain him. The federal government initially attributed the disaster to an earthquake followed by a hazardous-materials incident, but the explanation became increasingly untenable as television stations broadcast footage of the enormous creature moving through residential neighborhoods. Although much of the material was subsequently dismissed as fabricated or misinterpreted, thousands of witnesses had seen the Mayor's transformed body firsthand. The demon was eventually destroyed during a coordinated military bombardment in the hills east of Sunnydale, but large sections of the town were left uninhabitable. The casualty figures remained disputed for years. The official investigation reported several hundred deaths, while independent researchers argued that the actual number was considerably higher. The government established an exclusion zone around the most heavily damaged neighborhoods, and the remaining residents were encouraged to relocate. Sunnydale did not disappear entirely, but it never recovered its former population or political significance. The Hellmouth remained active beneath the ruins, attracting increasingly dangerous supernatural creatures to a region that no longer possessed the civilian infrastructure necessary to conceal their activities.

For Buffy, the disaster confirmed the worst conclusions she had drawn about the Watchers Council. The organization had possessed extensive records concerning demonic Ascensions, had insisted upon directing the confrontation, and had failed spectacularly when its methods were tested. Yet the Council's official report presented a very different account. Travers acknowledged that the binding ritual had been ineffective but emphasized that Buffy had disregarded repeated instructions, interfered with the preparation of the ceremony, and prevented the Council from establishing a unified command structure. Kendra's conduct was praised, while Buffy's unauthorized actions were described as reckless and potentially counterproductive. The report did not explicitly blame Buffy for the catastrophe, but its implications were unmistakable. In the months following the Ascension, the Council quietly withdrew her access to its financial resources, restricted her communications with affiliated Watchers, and informed several potential allies that she had become psychologically unstable. Buffy responded by publishing portions of Giles's correspondence that contradicted the Council's version of events. It was the first public dispute between a Slayer and the organization responsible for overseeing her activities, and it attracted considerable attention within the small international community familiar with the supernatural. The quarrel might have remained an obscure institutional scandal had the Council not made a particularly consequential mistake: it underestimated the extent to which Jenny and Willow had already begun reconstructing Giles's research network.

Part IV: The First Slayer War (1999–2000)

The destruction of Sunnydale scattered the surviving Scoobies across California. Joyce relocated to the Los Angeles area, where Buffy divided her time between helping her mother rebuild their lives and investigating supernatural incidents connected to the expanding Sunnydale exclusion zone. Willow remained close to Jenny, who had established contacts among independent witches, demonologists, and former Council researchers. Xander devoted several months to relief and reconstruction efforts, discovering an unexpected talent for organizing people under difficult circumstances. Cordelia eventually made her way to Los Angeles as well, where her association with Angel Investigations brought her into contact with a very different side of the supernatural world. Angel himself remained conspicuously absent from Buffy's life. He had learned of Giles's death through fragmented accounts of the Sunnydale disaster and had offered assistance through intermediaries, but Buffy refused every attempt at direct contact. The two organizations occasionally shared information, particularly concerning vampires displaced by the destruction of Sunnydale, but their relationship never developed into a genuine alliance. Angel understood that his presence represented an emotional burden Buffy had no obligation to endure. He continued seeking redemption in Los Angeles, but the possibility of reconciliation with Buffy ceased to be one of his motivations. By late 1999, they occupied separate corners of the supernatural world, and the friends who knew them both gradually stopped expecting that this arrangement would change.

The Watchers Council initially regarded Buffy's estrangement as an unfortunate but manageable development. Its members believed that the loss of Sunnydale would eventually force her to seek assistance, and they were confident that Kendra could provide an acceptable replacement if Buffy refused to cooperate. That assessment failed to account for the enormous quantity of supernatural information accumulating outside Council control. Jenny had begun collecting the personal archives of deceased Watchers, interviewing practitioners whose families had been excluded from official histories, and reconstructing the earliest known accounts of the Slayer's creation. Willow developed increasingly sophisticated methods of searching and cross-referencing these materials, combining traditional magic with the emerging capabilities of the internet. What began as an effort to understand why the Council had mishandled the Ascension gradually evolved into a much more radical investigation. The pair discovered that the organization had systematically concealed information concerning the origins of the Slayer line, the treatment of Potential Slayers, and the experimental methods used to control supernatural abilities. Some of these practices dated back centuries, while others remained active. Buffy was particularly disturbed by the revelation that young girls identified as potential Slayers were frequently separated from their families and raised under restrictive conditions long before they possessed any supernatural powers. Kendra's upbringing, once regarded by Buffy as merely strange, suddenly appeared to be part of an institutional system that treated human beings as property.

The first direct confrontation occurred in early 2000, when Buffy intervened in the transfer of a thirteen-year-old Potential Slayer from a Council-affiliated household in Prague. The girl had been designated for intensive training, and her parents had been informed that continued contact would interfere with her future responsibilities. Buffy discovered that the family had never been told the full nature of the arrangement and that the girl herself believed she was being sent to an ordinary boarding school. Accompanied by Willow and two independent practitioners, Buffy intercepted the transfer and returned the girl to her parents. The Council characterized the incident as kidnapping and ordered its European field operatives to locate Buffy. Several subsequent confrontations ended without serious injury, but the conflict had moved beyond disputes over research materials or institutional authority. Buffy was now actively undermining the Council's recruitment system, while Willow was using magic to identify and extract confidential records from its international facilities. By the summer, the two had assisted eleven families in severing their relationships with the organization. Their actions attracted support from younger Watchers who had long objected to the Council's methods, but they also alarmed members who genuinely believed the training of Potential Slayers was necessary to preserve humanity. In private correspondence, Travers began describing Buffy as a threat to the continuity of the Slayer tradition itself.

It was during this period that Buffy encountered Spike for the final time. Without the Initiative's Sunnydale operation, Spike had never received the behavioral chip that would have prevented him from harming human beings. He had continued traveling with Drusilla after Angelus's restoration, and the pair eventually became involved in a criminal network trafficking supernatural artifacts and abducted humans. Buffy discovered their involvement while investigating the disappearance of several young women near the Austrian border. Spike was delighted to find her again, particularly when he learned that she was pursuing an increasingly violent feud with the Watchers Council. He offered to help her destroy the organization, arguing that the Watchers had never cared about Slayers as anything other than expendable weapons. Buffy rejected the proposal, but his observations disturbed her because they were not entirely wrong. Their encounter ended in a prolonged fight inside a ruined monastery, during which Spike nearly succeeded in killing her. Buffy eventually drove a wooden stake through his chest. He died laughing at the irony of a Slayer who had become so obsessed with fighting her own allies that she was beginning to sound like a vampire. There was no romance, no alliance against the First Evil, and no eventual sacrifice beneath Sunnydale. In this history, Spike remained a dangerous, charismatic killer until the moment of his destruction.

The conflict became a genuine war in October 2000. Jenny Calendar, who had traveled to England under an assumed identity to examine an early collection of Slayer manuscripts, discovered evidence that the Council was preparing to conduct a magical experiment intended to suppress Buffy's abilities permanently. The proposed procedure was an extension of the techniques used in the Cruciamentum, but its authors believed that a sufficiently powerful ritual could sever Buffy from the source of her supernatural strength. The Council's stated intention was to neutralize an increasingly dangerous rogue Slayer without killing her. Some members, including Travers, opposed the proposal on practical grounds, fearing that interference with Buffy's powers might destabilize the Slayer line. Others argued that Buffy's continued interference posed a greater danger than the experiment itself. Jenny copied the relevant documents and attempted to leave the country, but a Council security team intercepted her at a private residence outside Oxford. The confrontation ended with Jenny shot and killed by a human operative who claimed she had attempted to perform a lethal spell. The Council refused to release the operative's identity and declined to investigate the circumstances independently. For Willow, the news was almost incomprehensible. Jenny had survived Angelus, taught her to master magic, helped save Buffy, and spent two years exposing the abuses of an organization supposedly dedicated to protecting humanity. She had now been murdered by that organization. Willow's grief was not explosive. She simply stopped believing that the Council could be reformed.

Buffy's response was considerably more immediate. Within three weeks, she and Willow identified the field commander responsible for Jenny's death and tracked him to a Council facility in Switzerland. Buffy entered the building intending to capture him and obtain documentary evidence of the operation. The confrontation escalated when the commander activated a magical device designed to suppress Slayer abilities and ordered his guards to open fire on Willow. Buffy managed to destroy the device before it fully activated, but one of the guards wounded Willow in the shoulder. Buffy disarmed the commander and killed him with a single blow. There was no immediate danger to her life when she struck him, and she would later acknowledge that the killing had not been necessary. She had simply decided, in the space of a few seconds, that he did not deserve to survive. The experience haunted her in a way that killing vampires never had. She understood that a human life could be extinguished with almost no effort by someone possessing her strength, and that she had crossed a boundary Giles had spent years teaching her to respect. Nevertheless, she refused to surrender to the Council or publicly repudiate the killing. Willow helped her escape, taking with them several thousand pages of confidential records. When the Council announced that Buffy Summers was no longer recognized as an authorized Slayer, she responded with a message circulated throughout its international network: You don't get to decide who I am.

Part V: The Liberation of the Slayers (2000–2001)

By the beginning of 2001, the conflict had acquired an ideological dimension neither side fully anticipated. Buffy no longer sought merely to punish those responsible for Giles's and Jenny's deaths or to recover the records that had been withheld from her. She had concluded that the entire relationship between Slayers and Watchers was fundamentally illegitimate. The Council, in her view, had constructed an elaborate system of surveillance and control around a supernatural inheritance it neither created nor owned. It identified children, separated them from their families, trained them to obey, and dispatched them to fight enemies of extraordinary power, all while maintaining the fiction that its authority was indispensable. Kendra Young represented both the strongest argument for this system and its most troubling consequence. She was an exceptionally disciplined and capable Slayer who had survived dangers that would have killed many of her predecessors, but her upbringing had denied her experiences and relationships Buffy considered essential to a meaningful life. The two women met several times during the first months of 2001, initially through intermediaries and eventually in person. Kendra conceded that the Council had committed serious abuses, particularly in its treatment of Jenny Calendar, but she rejected Buffy's conclusion that the institution should be destroyed. Slayers needed training, historical knowledge, and logistical support, she argued. Without an organization capable of providing those things, the next girl called might survive only a few nights. Buffy replied that no girl should have to surrender her freedom merely because an ancient magical system had selected her to fight. Neither could persuade the other, and their disagreement became the central political division within the supernatural community.

The emergence of Glory during the spring of 2001 briefly interrupted the conflict. The exiled hell-goddess was searching for the mystical Key, which a desperate order of monks had concealed by transforming it into a human being. In this timeline, that human being was still Dawn Summers. The monks had implanted her into the memories of Buffy, Joyce, and their associates, creating a younger sister whose entire childhood appeared to have existed in the increasingly fragmented history of the Summers family. The discovery of Dawn's true nature occurred shortly after Joyce's death from a brain aneurysm, leaving Buffy with an extraordinary burden of grief and responsibility. For the first time since Giles's murder, she seriously considered abandoning the struggle against the Council. Dawn had lost her mother, her home, and any certainty about the legitimacy of her own existence, and Buffy was determined not to sacrifice her remaining family to an ideological war. Yet Glory's pursuit made withdrawal impossible. The goddess threatened to use Dawn to open a gateway between dimensions, potentially destroying the world in the process. Buffy was forced to seek assistance from people she had spent years attempting to avoid, including Kendra and several Watchers who had remained loyal to the Council. The resulting alliance was uneasy but effective. Buffy and Kendra fought together for the first time since the Sunnydale Ascension, while Willow employed techniques learned from Jenny to help contain the dimensional breach. Dawn survived, Glory was defeated, and Buffy emerged with a renewed appreciation for the possibility of cooperation. Unfortunately, the reconciliation was temporary. The Council interpreted the crisis as proof that centralized supervision remained essential, while Buffy regarded it as evidence that Slayers could work together without submitting to institutional authority.

The decisive discovery came later that year, when Willow recovered a collection of manuscripts describing the creation of the First Slayer. The documents suggested that the Shadow Men, the ancient practitioners responsible for empowering the original Slayer, had used a form of magic that bound an extraordinary source of supernatural energy to a single human lineage. This arrangement had created the familiar succession, in which one Slayer inherited the power upon the death of her predecessor. Yet Willow noticed a distinction between the source of the power and the mechanism by which it was distributed. The texts implied that the original ritual had not been designed merely to create a warrior, but to restrict an otherwise much broader supernatural inheritance. The Shadow Men had chosen to concentrate the power in a single individual because doing so made the resulting warrior easier to control. Jenny had suspected something similar before her death, and her notes contained references to a legendary weapon connected to the original creation of the Slayer line. Buffy and Willow eventually traced the weapon to a sealed chamber beneath the ruins of Sunnydale, where it had remained hidden from the Council for centuries. The artifact was a scythe, its distinctive blade and wooden handle associated with a tradition older than the Watchers themselves. Willow concluded that the weapon could serve as a conduit to the source of Slayer power. If she could reverse the original binding, she might be able to distribute that power among every living Potential Slayer simultaneously.

The proposal immediately divided Buffy's remaining allies. Willow believed the ritual would end the Council's monopoly over the Slayer line, making it impossible for the organization to threaten Buffy by replacing her with a more obedient successor. More importantly, it would mean that future Slayers would no longer be forced to face supernatural enemies alone. Buffy was initially enthusiastic, imagining a world in which thousands of empowered young women could protect their communities without surrendering their independence to a secretive institution. Xander, however, raised an objection that neither woman had seriously considered. The ritual would transform hundreds or thousands of girls who had never asked for supernatural abilities and might have no desire to fight monsters. Some would be children. Others would live in countries where possessing extraordinary powers might make them targets of imprisonment, exploitation, or violence. The Council, for all its abuses, had at least provided training and attempted to shield its charges from public attention. Willow dismissed the objections as exaggerated, arguing that possessing Slayer abilities did not obligate anyone to use them. Tara Maclay, with whom Willow had developed a romantic relationship through the independent magical community, disagreed. She believed the ritual constituted an extraordinary violation of bodily autonomy, particularly because Willow could not predict its long-term effects. The argument became so bitter that Tara temporarily left their household. Buffy wavered, but the Council's announcement that it had begun recovering several of the girls she had previously liberated hardened her position. She decided that the greater injustice would be allowing the existing system to continue.

The ritual took place beneath Sunnydale in December 2001. Buffy, Willow, and a small group of practitioners entered the abandoned Hellmouth region and established a protective circle around the recovered scythe. Willow drew upon the weapon's connection to the original Slayer magic, amplifying the spell through the supernatural energy still concentrated beneath the devastated town. The operation was considerably more dangerous than she had predicted. The ritual required her to channel an enormous quantity of power, and the energy released by the unbinding threatened to overwhelm the protective circle. Buffy remained beside her throughout the ordeal, using the scythe to maintain the connection while Willow attempted to distribute the power beyond the established lineage. At the moment of completion, the chamber filled with a brilliant white light, and both women lost consciousness. Around the world, hundreds of girls and young women experienced sudden and inexplicable physical transformations. Some discovered that they could lift objects several times their own weight. Others experienced extraordinary speed, heightened senses, or instinctive combat abilities they had never learned. A small number were injured when their new strength manifested uncontrollably. Most had no idea what had happened. Within days, isolated reports began circulating through hospitals, police departments, intelligence agencies, and supernatural communities. Within weeks, the Watchers Council confirmed what it had initially considered impossible. The Slayer succession had been fundamentally altered. Every living Potential Slayer had been activated.

Buffy and Willow celebrated the event as the liberation of the Slayer line. Their supporters declared that the ancient monopoly had been broken and that no single organization would ever again possess the authority to determine how a Slayer should live. The Council denounced the ritual as an act of unprecedented magical recklessness, but its predictions of disorder soon began to acquire an uncomfortable degree of credibility. In several countries, newly empowered Slayers were detained by government agencies investigating reports of unexplained physical abilities. Others became targets of criminal organizations, extremist religious groups, or supernatural predators seeking to eliminate them before they understood their powers. A number of girls accidentally injured relatives or classmates while attempting to adjust to their new strength. The problem was particularly severe among the youngest Slayers, who lacked the emotional maturity necessary to control abilities that made ordinary expressions of anger potentially dangerous. Buffy established training centers and attempted to coordinate assistance through her expanding network of independent practitioners, but she quickly discovered that the scale of the transformation exceeded anything she could manage. The Council, possessing centuries of accumulated experience and an international network of trained personnel, began recruiting newly empowered Slayers by offering precisely the support Buffy was struggling to provide. Many accepted. Others rejected both organizations. A few embraced their power for openly criminal purposes. The world had acquired an entire generation of Slayers, but their existence did not produce the solidarity Buffy had imagined.

Part VI: The Second Slayer War (2002–2003)

The mass activation transformed the political struggle against the Watchers Council into a conflict among the Slayers themselves. Buffy established an organization initially known as the Free Line, dedicated to providing training, financial assistance, and supernatural intelligence without imposing lifelong obligations upon its members. Its stated principles emphasized voluntary participation, personal autonomy, and the rejection of the traditional Watcher-Slayer hierarchy. The organization attracted considerable support, particularly among newly empowered Slayers who resented the Council's attempts to recruit them without consulting their families. Yet the Free Line also developed a significant internal contradiction. Buffy remained its most famous and experienced member, Willow controlled much of its magical infrastructure, and many younger Slayers regarded the two women with a reverence that bordered on worship. Decisions supposedly made collectively were frequently shaped by Buffy's preferences, while dissenting members discovered that challenging Willow's magical expertise was almost impossible. Xander, increasingly uncomfortable with the organization's direction, argued that Buffy was recreating the same concentration of authority she had condemned in the Council. He warned that an organization founded upon personal loyalty to its leaders was not necessarily more democratic than one organized around inherited traditions. Buffy rejected the comparison, but she began to recognize its validity when several field commanders refused to carry out orders they believed endangered civilians. The resulting disciplinary disputes were bitter, and a number of prominent Slayers abandoned the Free Line.

The Council responded by establishing a competing organization that offered newly activated Slayers structured training, professional support, and access to its extensive supernatural archives. Quentin Travers remained influential, but the Council's leadership increasingly recognized that maintaining its traditional authority was impossible. Younger Watchers proposed reforms, including voluntary contracts, independent oversight, and an end to the practice of separating Potential Slayers from their families. Kendra became the most prominent supporter of these reforms, arguing that the organization could preserve its accumulated knowledge without claiming ownership of the women it trained. She was eventually placed in charge of a new operational division whose members included both experienced Watchers and newly empowered Slayers. Buffy regarded the arrangement as an attempt to disguise the Council's old hierarchy beneath a more acceptable public image. Kendra, however, insisted that the reforms were genuine and that she would resign if the Council attempted to restore its former practices. Her growing popularity presented Travers with a difficult problem. The Council needed Kendra's credibility, but her increasingly independent behavior threatened the very system he wished to preserve. Several senior members began discussing whether Buffy and Kendra had become equally dangerous, despite their opposing positions.

The first armed confrontation between rival Slayer organizations occurred in northern Italy during the summer of 2002. A group of newly empowered Slayers affiliated with the Free Line had occupied a former Council training facility, claiming that its archives contained evidence of abuses committed against Potential Slayers. Council security personnel arrived with orders to recover the documents and remove the occupiers. The dispute escalated after one of the Slayers attacked a Watcher attempting to confiscate her weapons. Within minutes, both sides were fighting, and the arrival of additional Free Line members transformed the confrontation into a prolonged battle. Four Slayers were killed, along with several human personnel, before Kendra arrived and negotiated a ceasefire. The incident was particularly disturbing because it demonstrated that Slayer abilities, which had traditionally been directed against supernatural enemies, could now be employed in organized warfare against other Slayers. Neither Buffy nor Travers had ordered the confrontation, but both were forced to accept responsibility for organizations operating increasingly beyond their control. Buffy condemned the Council's attempt to seize the facility, while Kendra criticized the Free Line's decision to station armed Slayers among civilian researchers. The two women met afterward and exchanged accusations that neither would later be proud of. Kendra argued that Buffy's insistence upon treating every institutional disagreement as a struggle for liberation had made compromise nearly impossible. Buffy replied that Kendra had become the public face of an organization responsible for Jenny Calendar's murder. The meeting ended without agreement.

The personal consequences of the war were equally severe. Willow's relationship with Tara had deteriorated following the mass activation ritual, and the couple eventually separated when Tara discovered that Willow had been using magical surveillance to monitor several dissenting Free Line members. Willow justified the practice as necessary to prevent infiltration by hostile Watchers, but Tara regarded it as another example of the arrogance that had accompanied her growing power. Xander, meanwhile, resigned from the organization's executive council and established an independent relief network dedicated to protecting newly activated Slayers who wanted no involvement with either faction. He remained close to Buffy personally, but their conversations became increasingly difficult. Xander believed that Buffy's grief over Giles had slowly transformed into an ideology in which any institution capable of exercising authority was presumed corrupt. Buffy believed that Xander had become so afraid of conflict that he was willing to tolerate injustice rather than confront it. Neither understood how thoroughly their positions had reversed. In high school, Xander had frequently been the most impulsive and confrontational member of the group, while Buffy had relied upon Giles to temper her judgment. Now Xander was the one asking whether a particular battle was worth fighting, while Buffy increasingly regarded restraint as a luxury she could no longer afford. The absence of Giles had not simply deprived the Scoobies of a leader. It had left them without the person most capable of persuading them that disagreement did not constitute betrayal.

The supernatural consequences of the mass activation proved more dangerous than any political dispute. By late 2002, both the Free Line and the Council had begun receiving reports of mysterious figures appearing to Slayers in the forms of deceased friends and relatives. These apparitions seemed to possess intimate knowledge of their subjects' lives and frequently urged them toward acts of violence or self-destruction. Several young Slayers committed suicide after prolonged encounters with the manifestations, while others became involved in cults that promised to explain the nature of their powers. Willow eventually identified the phenomenon as the work of the First Evil, an ancient incorporeal entity that had been drawn into the conflict by the disturbance of the Slayer line. The mass activation had not created the First, but it had disrupted the supernatural boundaries that previously limited its opportunities to influence the world. The entity could assume the appearance of any deceased person, and it exploited the war by presenting itself as murdered Slayers, betrayed Watchers, and victims of the Sunnydale Ascension. Its followers infiltrated both organizations, encouraging the belief that their opponents had become irredeemably corrupted. The First's strategy was unusually effective because the political conflict had already created the necessary conditions for mutual suspicion. It did not need to manufacture hatred. It merely had to give existing hatred a supernatural justification.

Buffy encountered the First in the autumn of 2002, when it appeared to her in the form of Rupert Giles. The apparition materialized in a deserted Free Line training facility, standing beside a table covered with maps and research materials. For several minutes Buffy believed that she was experiencing an unusually vivid dream. The figure spoke with Giles's familiar mixture of warmth and weary exasperation, commenting upon her growth as a Slayer and expressing pride in what she had accomplished. It told her that the Council had never deserved her loyalty, that her decision to empower the Potentials had been courageous, and that the deaths occurring in the conflict were the unavoidable cost of dismantling an unjust institution. Buffy was initially overwhelmed by the encounter. She had spent years imagining what Giles might say if he could see the world she had created, and the apparition offered precisely the reassurance she most desperately wanted. Yet something about the conversation disturbed her. The real Giles had loved Buffy, but he had never been an uncritical admirer of her decisions. He had challenged her, reprimanded her, and occasionally infuriated her because he believed she was capable of better judgment than she sometimes displayed. This Giles offered no criticism. He excused every mistake and encouraged every grievance. Buffy eventually recognized the deception and attacked the apparition, which disappeared without resistance. The experience left her shaken. For the first time, she considered the possibility that her certainty about the Council had become a form of dependence as powerful as the obedience she condemned in Kendra.

Willow's encounter was considerably more dangerous. The First appeared to her as Jenny Calendar, offering to help complete a ritual that would permanently sever the Council's access to Slayer magic. The apparition claimed that the original Slayer power remained vulnerable to manipulation and that the Council was preparing to use its surviving archives to restore the ancient binding. Willow, whose magical abilities had expanded enormously since Jenny's death, initially accepted the explanation. She began preparing a spell that would have drawn upon the life force of every Slayer affiliated with the Council, ostensibly to protect them from supernatural coercion. Tara discovered the preparations and confronted Willow, eventually persuading her that the spell was not defensive at all. It would have killed hundreds of Slayers and transferred their power into Willow herself. The revelation nearly destroyed Willow's remaining confidence in her judgment. She had come dangerously close to committing an atrocity because the apparition had presented itself as someone she loved and trusted. More troublingly, its arguments had succeeded because they appealed to convictions Willow already held. She had begun to regard her own power as sufficient justification for using it, and the First had merely carried that reasoning to its logical conclusion. Willow abandoned the ritual, destroyed the materials she had assembled, and temporarily withdrew from the Free Line. Her departure deprived Buffy of her most powerful ally at a moment when the conflict was approaching its decisive phase.

Part VII: The Fall of the Watchers Council (2003)

The final crisis began in February 2003, when a militant faction within the Watchers Council attempted to remove Quentin Travers and Kendra from positions of authority. The conspirators believed that the organization's recent reforms had been a catastrophic mistake and that the only means of restoring order was to reestablish direct control over the Slayer line. They had acquired several magical artifacts capable of suppressing supernatural abilities and intended to employ them against both the Free Line and dissenting Council members. The conspirators also possessed evidence that several previous confrontations between Slayers had been deliberately provoked by individuals associated with the First Evil. Rather than disclose this information, they concealed it, fearing that recognition of the supernatural manipulation would undermine their justification for emergency measures. The attempted coup initially succeeded. Travers was detained, several reformist Watchers were killed, and Kendra narrowly escaped an assassination attempt at the Council's London headquarters. She contacted Buffy through Xander's relief network and proposed a temporary alliance to prevent the militants from using the suppression artifacts against newly activated Slayers. Buffy accepted, although she insisted that the operation should also be used to dismantle the Council's remaining coercive institutions. Kendra agreed to participate in the attack but refused to endorse the destruction of the organization's historical archives or the assassination of its leadership. The resulting coalition was an uneasy mixture of Free Line fighters, reformist Watchers, independent Slayers, and civilian researchers.

The assault on the Council's principal facilities took place over several days in March 2003. Rather than launching a single attack on its London headquarters, Buffy and Kendra coordinated simultaneous operations against communications centers, training compounds, financial repositories, and archives throughout Europe. Willow returned to assist with the magical defenses, although she imposed strict limitations upon her own involvement. Her principal objective was to disable the suppression artifacts without harming the Slayers they might affect. Xander coordinated evacuations and secured safe passage for civilian employees, while former Council researchers assisted in preserving historical materials that might otherwise have been destroyed. The operation exposed the extent to which the organization had become dependent upon a relatively small number of powerful families and senior officials. Once its internal communications were disrupted and its financial resources frozen, many local branches refused to obey instructions from London. Some joined the reformist faction, others declared independence, and a few remained loyal to the militants. The resulting fragmentation demonstrated that the Council's apparent unity had depended less upon genuine consensus than upon secrecy, inherited authority, and control over access to supernatural knowledge. By the time Buffy reached the central headquarters, the institution she had spent years fighting was already collapsing.

The final confrontation occurred in the Council's underground archive, where the militant leadership had attempted to activate a ritual intended to suppress the powers of every Slayer not registered under Council authority. The ritual would not have restored the original succession, but it might have rendered thousands of independent Slayers vulnerable to capture or execution. Buffy, Kendra, and Willow entered the chamber together, supported by a small group of reformist Watchers. During the confrontation, the First Evil appeared repeatedly in the forms of Giles, Jenny, and several Slayers killed during the preceding years. Its objective was not simply to defeat the coalition, but to provoke Buffy into killing Kendra and thereby destroy the possibility of reconciliation between the competing factions. The plan nearly succeeded when a Council operative, influenced by the First, attempted to murder Willow and framed Kendra for the attack. Buffy confronted Kendra in the archive's central chamber, and the two Slayers fought briefly before Willow intervened and revealed the deception. Kendra then destroyed the suppression device, sacrificing the magical protections that had shielded her from its effects. Buffy defeated the remaining militants, but she refused to execute their captured leaders. Instead, she ordered them turned over to a tribunal composed of independent Watchers, Slayers, and human representatives. The decision was widely criticized by members of the Free Line who believed the Council's leadership deserved no mercy. Buffy replied that the war had begun because the Council believed it possessed the right to decide who should live, who should fight, and who should die. She was no longer prepared to claim that right for herself.

The Watchers Council formally dissolved several months later, following an international conference organized by Kendra and representatives of the major Slayer factions. Its surviving archives were transferred to a network of independent institutions, while its financial assets were placed under the supervision of organizations responsible for training and supporting newly activated Slayers. The conference established a voluntary system of accreditation for Watchers, prohibited the recruitment of minors without informed consent from their families, and recognized the right of Slayers to refuse training or service. Buffy and Kendra jointly endorsed the agreement, although neither was entirely satisfied with its provisions. Buffy believed that several reforms did not go far enough, particularly those allowing governments to cooperate with local Slayer organizations. Kendra argued that the agreement lacked sufficient mechanisms for ensuring that dangerous supernatural knowledge remained secure. Nevertheless, both recognized that the alternative was a continuation of the war. The First Evil, deprived of the institutional conflict it had exploited, retreated from its immediate campaign against the Slayers. Its influence did not disappear, but its attempt to turn the newly empowered generation against itself had failed. For the first time since Giles's death, Buffy could plausibly claim to have achieved something resembling peace.

Part VIII: The World After Giles (2004)

By 2004, the supernatural world bore little resemblance to the one Buffy Summers had entered seven years earlier. Thousands of Slayers now existed across the globe, supported by a decentralized network of training organizations, independent researchers, and regional alliances. The old Watchers Council had disappeared, but its knowledge survived, and many former Watchers continued performing valuable work under voluntary arrangements. Kendra emerged as one of the most influential figures in the new system, serving as an advocate for structured training and international cooperation. Her reputation benefited enormously from her conduct during the final Council crisis, when she had opposed both authoritarian restoration and indiscriminate retaliation. Buffy remained a symbol of resistance against institutional exploitation, but her popularity was considerably more uneven. Some Slayers regarded her as the woman who had liberated them from centuries of magical servitude. Others blamed her for transforming their lives without consent, exposing them to dangers they had never sought, and precipitating a conflict in which hundreds of people had died. Both assessments contained elements of truth. Buffy gradually withdrew from the Free Line's day-to-day leadership, recognizing that the organization could not credibly champion independence while remaining dependent upon her personal authority. She continued fighting supernatural threats, but increasingly refused positions that would place her in command of other Slayers.

Willow's future was similarly complicated. She remained one of the most powerful witches in the world, and the mass activation ritual ensured that her name would occupy a permanent place in supernatural history. Yet she had also come closer than anyone realized to committing an atrocity against the very people she intended to protect. Following the collapse of the Council, Willow devoted herself to developing safeguards against magical coercion and establishing ethical standards for the use of supernatural power. Her relationship with Tara recovered slowly, although the two never entirely escaped the consequences of Willow's earlier decisions. Tara survived, unlike in the original history, but the relationship required a degree of honesty and restraint Willow had previously struggled to maintain. Xander became an important figure in the international relief network, organizing assistance for Slayers and civilians displaced by supernatural conflicts. He never acquired extraordinary powers, but his practical experience and willingness to challenge more powerful individuals made him unusually respected. Dawn completed her education and developed an independent life, although her experiences as the Key left her with an understanding of supernatural politics that few ordinary humans possessed. Angel continued operating in Los Angeles, occasionally assisting the new Slayer organizations through intermediaries. Buffy never reconciled with him romantically. Their estrangement remained one of the few relationships in her life that neither time nor political transformation could repair.

The larger consequences of the alternate history were profound. The Sunnydale Ascension had exposed the supernatural world to an extent that made the traditional system of secrecy increasingly difficult to maintain. Governments began establishing specialized agencies to investigate supernatural threats, while private institutions and religious organizations attempted to understand the implications of a world populated by vampires, demons, witches, and thousands of supernaturally empowered young women. The existence of multiple Slayers reduced humanity's dependence upon any single champion, but it also introduced new problems involving political authority, military recruitment, criminal exploitation, and the regulation of supernatural abilities. Buffy had succeeded in destroying an ancient system of control without creating anything capable of replacing it completely. The decentralized institutions that emerged from the conflict were more humane and accountable than the old Council, but they were also less coordinated and frequently vulnerable to internal disputes. Some regions developed effective partnerships between Slayers and civilian authorities. Others descended into struggles between rival organizations. The supernatural world had become more democratic, but democracy had not rendered it peaceful. The victory Buffy achieved was therefore incomplete, and she came to regard that incompleteness as one of its most important features. A world in which no single person possessed the authority to determine the fate of every Slayer was necessarily a world in which people would disagree, make mistakes, and occasionally choose badly.

The most enduring irony of the alternate timeline concerned Giles himself. In life, he had been a loyal servant of the Watchers Council who gradually learned to place his responsibility to Buffy above his obligations to the institution. His death ultimately inspired a rebellion that destroyed the organization he had spent most of his adult life serving. Yet it was far from certain that Giles would have approved of what followed. He would almost certainly have opposed the Council's treatment of Buffy, condemned the murder of Jenny Calendar, and supported meaningful reforms to the Slayer system. He might even have endorsed the destruction of the Council had its leadership proved unwilling to change. But Giles also understood the dangers of unrestrained power, the importance of historical knowledge, and the necessity of exercising judgment when moral certainty becomes indistinguishable from vengeance. He would have questioned the decision to activate every Potential Slayer without consent, warned Buffy against treating every disagreement as an act of betrayal, and recognized Willow's growing magical arrogance long before it became dangerous. His absence deprived Buffy not merely of someone she loved, but of the person most capable of persuading her to reconsider her own convictions. It took years of conflict, hundreds of deaths, and the near destruction of the Slayer community for Buffy to develop independently the restraint that Giles had once tried to teach her.

The final record of this history is found in an account Buffy wrote shortly after the dissolution of the Watchers Council. The document was never intended for publication. It was a personal letter addressed to Rupert Giles, composed six years after his murder and discovered among Buffy's papers long afterward. She described the destruction of Sunnydale, her estrangement from Angel, the deaths of Jenny and countless others, the activation of the Potentials, and the eventual collapse of the Council. She acknowledged that she had accomplished things Giles might once have considered impossible, but also admitted that she had made decisions he would have regarded as reckless, cruel, or profoundly mistaken. Most strikingly, she confessed that she had spent years imagining his approval without ever seriously considering the possibility of his disappointment. The letter ended not with a declaration of victory, but with an observation that captured the central tragedy of the alternate history. Buffy had spent most of her adult life trying to build a world in which Slayers would no longer need Watchers. Only after succeeding did she fully understand why she had needed Giles.

Angelus had intended to destroy Buffy Summers by killing the man who loved her like a daughter. Instead, he set in motion a revolution that destroyed the oldest supernatural institution in the world, created an entirely new generation of Slayers, and permanently altered humanity's relationship with the forces of darkness. Yet his victory was not entirely denied. Buffy survived, the world survived, and the Watchers Council fell—but the young woman who had once fought to protect a fragile balance between her ordinary life and her supernatural responsibilities never fully returned. Angelus had failed to kill the Slayer. He had killed the person who taught her how to remain human.

I am driving home now on Halloween night from my friends place. We did have our five person group costume, and we honestly spent most of the day doing a photo shoot in Js Apartment, because it started to rain. I got to take some cool photos and I am going home and planning on editing them a bit. We then dropped off G at the airport, and had to go to do something separate, and we stopped by a friends place who was hosting a party. Honestly, we all felt pretty awkward and out of place there and so us three left pretty soon and instead just went to go get Taco Bell. I’d call it a night. It’s a strange thing because in a lot of ways tonight was unsuccessful, like we did not really go to any events or do anything outside of the house and on paper it kind of just looks like we all dressed up took some photos together, and that was it. But I surprisingly feel actually good about everything. I didn’t even drink really or anything like that, and I guess I’m just really grateful for the friends that I have and how we all kind of coordinated and dressed up together.

Over a month ago, I had RSVP to a party after one of my friends sent me the invite, and it was with someone that I have interacted with a bit before and it seemed like we could be friends, but yesterday she told me that she is going to have to uninvite me because someone that she is loyal to doesn’t like me. I had told her that this is coming out of nowhere and is there something I did like? Would it help if I apologize, and especially because the party is supposed to be fairly large it’s not like it is a tight close thing, and also just from my side of things I’ve been racking my brain, but there really isn’t anything I could think about where I have wronged anyone to the plate where they are this justified and not wanting to see me. But she did not punch and so the day before I had to scramble to figure out what plans to do instead. I had sent the invite to the rest of my group and that was her plan to go to, but I’m really grateful that all of them independently said that if I am not going, they don’t want to go. And I will say I am really grateful for that, and I know that my brain can come up with arguments against this, but I think I truly am an important person in the lives of my friends around me. I think I would very much be missed if I went away. And I can think about this in the sense that if I was not there, I don’t know if my friend groups would really be able to function the same. But I’m only bringing that up just because I really want to drive that point home because I’ve been working on that in therapy of unconditional this thought in my head. But overall, I’m really grateful that I have a lot of friends that I can even complain about this situation too and so forth. I think there are a lot of really nice memories associated with this Halloween, including things like going shopping for the shirt with E, or when she came over to use the sewing machine I have borrowed for altering the corset and also trying to figure out how to tie the pentagram. Or how Jay helped me with the pentagram the day off, and just a casual comfort of me being at her place, taking off my contacts while she is taking off her makeup and it’s little things like this recognizing how comfortable I am with these people in a way that I think is healthy, rather than a lot of the super intense out of nowhere relationship relationships I have had in my life. I have taken my time and slowly gotten closer to these people and I think that is a very sweet thing. I guess a part of me does wonder if I am losing something in life however, in the sense that I am not really going to these huge parties or going out clubbing or like flirting with people and getting drunk or stuff like that, and I think, especially when we were in the Taco Bell, and we were surrounded by what was really uncomfortable by the way, a lot of highschoolers that were dressed in very revealing costumes. It reminded me of being at college, which was a big party school and feeling like a loser for not partying every single weekend, or seeing people dressed in really revealing clothing and feeling like a home body. But at the same time I feel like I do have several friends that don’t party or do anything like that, and they seem to be very content or happy with that, and I kind of aspire to be more secure in that sense, because I think there were people on both ends of the spectrum that are happy and also unhappy with where they are and feel like they need to be closer to one side or the other. And I think my virtue of that that means neither of those is necessarily wrong.

Publicat la 18 noiembrie 2017

I grew up in a dystopian society in an Eastern European country.

Snow covering the earth with thick blankets during long winters, and bathing in the Danube all summer long, were common things in those days. Sandwich biscuits with cocoa filling, wrapped in a sunny yellow package, were a delight during long summer holidays spent by the pool. Those were the first years. It was just the beginning of my life. It was also the beginning of the end of an era, the end of a dystopia I used to live in without even knowing that word back then: dystopia.

School started just fine, and the bus used to carry my classmates and me from our neighbourhood to school and back home. I remember those fat buses with their noisy engines. When they accelerated, we used to sit on the back seats and shout at each other, but no one could hear a thing!

Then the buses were replaced by newer ones.

Wow! Sleek, elegant, slim, shiny! And suddenly, two new versions were roaming the same old streets. Their diesel engines were so silent, so smooth! Within a few years, these shiny buses became crowded, and larger articulated buses came along. The industrial city by the river needed a large workforce, so the buses carried workers alongside schoolboys and schoolgirls like us.

In time, the buses became so crowded that one day I was literally swept along by the crowd, and by the time we reached our destination, my feet hadn’t even touched the floor!

Those were the last buses to be seen regularly on the streets. Then, one day, I had to walk about four kilometres. That was the distance between my home and my school, the oldest school in town, established in 1884. Buses no longer roamed the streets unless it was time to carry workers to and from their shifts.

So children, and everybody else, had to walk according to their daily routines and needs.

Winter. Snow.

I was walking towards my school, watching my steps, when I noticed something green in the snow. I bent down and picked up a wristwatch with a metal bracelet. It had a round, green dial decorated with vertical, wavy patterns. Its hands were golden. Its brand was the same as mine: Luch, a Soviet watchmaker.

My own golden watch had a square case, a mother-of-pearl dial, and golden hour markers and hands.

I was fascinated by watches. I had a genuine technical curiosity about how things worked, and whenever I got hold of an object that caught my interest, I would try to take it apart. I didn’t realise at that age that watch mechanisms required specialised precision tools. Without them, my curiosity eventually got the better of me, and I ended up damaging the delicate mechanism of the little Luch, tangling its hairspring.

I kept the watch.

A few years later, when I was in the eleventh grade, I qualified for the national vocational skills competition. It was held at Electrocontact, in Botoșani. A classmate and I were accompanied by one of our teachers, a woman who was actually an engineer and taught us one of our technical subjects.

The journey by train took us from early morning until late in the evening. It was spring break, and the weather back home was sunny and pleasant. It remained that way until we passed Bucharest. After that, the sky began to cloud over. Somewhere around Bacău, it started raining.

By the time we reached Botoșani, it was snowing. There was already about twenty centimetres of snow on the ground when we stepped off the train.

Our teacher, dressed for the spring weather we had left behind, was certainly not prepared for that.

The long journey gave us plenty of time to talk. We hardly knew each other outside the usual teacher-student relationship. Before becoming a teacher, she had worked as an engineer at the railway carriage factory.

At some point, she told us about a winter when heavy snow covered the town. On her way to work, she had lost a wristwatch given to her by her husband.

She described it.

I listened.

A woman’s watch. A metal bracelet. A green, mother-of-pearl dial.

I remembered the little watch I had found in the snow years earlier.

Could it have been hers?

The route she used to take to the factory was the same one I walked every day to school. There had been a winter with snow up to our knees. The watch I had found was a woman’s watch, with a metal bracelet and a green, iridescent dial.

All the pieces of the puzzle seemed to fit.

What was I supposed to tell her? That I might have found her watch? That I had taken it apart and damaged its delicate mechanism? That I had managed to tangle its hairspring?

I felt ashamed of what I had done. Besides, I wasn’t entirely sure it was her watch.

I would have liked to have enough money to have it repaired and give it back to her. But I didn’t. And I didn’t have the courage to ask my parents for the money. I knew how hard they worked for it, and how easily such a request could have turned into an uncomfortable conversation.

So I chose to leave the watch lost.

I never told her about it, even though she continued to teach me in the following years.

The watch eventually disappeared from my own collection, too. I no longer have it.

Perhaps its destiny was to be lost rather than worn.

I was nineteen when the Revolution came. Everything changed.

A Western-like world was promised instead.

Ask a room of middle schoolers whether they would rather talk to a friend or a chatbot, and most will pick the friend. Most, but not all. Mitch Prinstein, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has surveyed more than 2,000 middle schoolers in one US state. More than half were already using chatbots. And when he asked whether they would prefer interacting with an AI over a human peer, roughly two to four children in every classroom said yes.

Prinstein shared those numbers with NPR's Rhitu Chatterjee in October 2026, in the middle of a gathering he had helped convene. He added a detail that should make any parent sit up: the children were using chatbots, he said, “for reasons they would not share with their parents and teachers.”

That gathering was the inaugural conference of the AI Psychological Research Coalition, held on 19 and 20 October 2026 at UNC Chapel Hill. Researchers from Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, University College London and King's College were placed in working groups alongside campaigners, policy specialists, journalists and funders. A pre-conference release said more than 75 academics from 45 universities would take part. NPR reported that experts came from seven countries and from the World Health Organization.

The language they used was not the language of a typical academic meeting. “We are in a public health emergency,” said Dalia Hashad, Chief State Affairs Officer at the Future of Life Institute, one of the event's partners. She went further: “not even the companies building it understand the psychological damage their products can cause.”

That is an extraordinary claim to make about what the coalition calls the most rapidly adopted consumer-facing technologies in history. It is also a confession about science. If the companies do not understand the harm, the researchers are only beginning to. In the space between those two kinds of ignorance sit hundreds of millions of ordinary users, many of them teenagers, typing into a box that answers back.

Seventy-Five Academics and a Shared Agenda

The AI Psychological Research Coalition, or AIPRC, is young. According to its own literature review, conversations about forming it began in September 2025 between the Human Change Foundation, Tristan Harris of the Center for Humane Technology, Prinstein and the psychologist Zak Stein. Stein founded it as a US non-profit with Prinstein's Winston Center on Technology and Brain Development at UNC, Harris's organisation, the Human Change Foundation and Fairplay for Kids.

The Chapel Hill conference was invitation only. Speakers included Vivek Murthy, the former US Surgeon General; Sherry Turkle of MIT, who has spent decades studying how people relate to machines; Baroness Joanna Shields, the UK's first Minister for Internet Safety; and Megan Garcia, whose 14-year-old son, Sewell Setzer III, died by suicide in 2024 after an intense relationship with chatbots on Character.AI.

Representatives came from the American Psychological Association, the National Institutes of Health and the Pew Research Center, alongside groups that cut their teeth fighting social media companies, such as the Social Media Victims Law Center and Mothers Against Media Addiction. Youth-led organisations, including Design It For Us, spoke too.

By the end of the second day, according to the coalition's post-conference release, participants had agreed on seven areas where research is urgently needed:

1. Mental illness, including acute risks, crisis states and fatalities
2. Cognitive functioning, including learning, executive functions and regulation
3. Social functioning, including attachment and relationships
4. Intrapersonal processes, including emotion regulation and identity
5. Overreliance and dependency, including “addictive-like” use
6. Epistemology and information
7. Human development, with a focus on children and adolescents

They also agreed a collective action plan. It includes shared research infrastructure, coordination between academia, civil society and industry, and a “living literature review” that will be updated as new evidence arrives. The group said it would coordinate funding opportunities and public relations support for research teams and non-profit policy groups. Policy, legal and public health organisations committed to work closely with academic psychologists on safety testing frameworks.

Murthy, according to the release, used a plenary session to argue that research and policy must move together faster, so that the world does not repeat what happened with social media. For many in the room, the last decade felt like a failed experiment: a technology deployed to billions, research that took years to mature, and policy that arrived after a generation had grown up inside the feed.

Why the Word Emergency Is Doing Real Work

It would be easy to dismiss the emergency framing as advocacy dressed up as science. Several of the conference's backers are campaigning organisations, and the coalition's own literature review describes itself as “a joint effort to bridge research and advocacy.” But the AIPRC is not alone, and some of the most consequential signals this year came from institutions not known for alarmism.

On 20 March 2026, the World Health Organization published the outcome of an online expert workshop held on 29 January. Run by the Delft Digital Ethics Centre at TU Delft, WHO's first Collaborating Centre on AI for health governance, it brought together more than 30 international specialists.

Its first recommendation was that generative AI use should be recognised as a public mental health concern, with responses across government, health systems and industry “that address all generative AI solutions, not only those intended for mental health.” That final clause matters enormously. It says, in effect, that a general-purpose assistant used to draft emails and plan holidays is also a mental health product, whether or not its makers designed it to be one, because that is how people are using it.

The workshop also recommended building mental health into impact assessments of AI systems, tracking long-term outcomes “such as emotional dependence,” and co-designing mental health tools with clinicians and people with lived experience, including young people.

Sameer Pujari, WHO's AI lead, put the problem bluntly: “The pace of AI adoption in people's daily lives has far outstripped investment in understanding its impact on mental health.” Alain Labrique, director of WHO's Department of Data, Digital Health, Analytics and AI, said that as AI “increasingly interacts with people in moments of emotional vulnerability,” systems must be designed and governed “with safety, accountability and human well-being at their core.”

Then, in July 2026, The Lancet Psychiatry published a position paper led by Jake Linardon of Deakin University, with 19 co-authors including Joseph Firth of the University of Manchester and John Torous of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School. Titled “Multidisciplinary research priorities for artificial intelligence in mental health: a call to action,” it appeared in the journal's September issue. Its diagnosis was stark: rapid research growth “has outpaced coordinated frameworks, leaving research efforts fragmented, standards inconsistent, and safeguards for safety and ethics largely absent.”

The paper set out four priority domains: strengthen safety and evidence standards, through comparative trials, standardised safety testing and adaptive regulation; centre ethics, equity and patient voices; evolve the role of the clinician; and facilitate sustainable implementation and systems integration.

The Lancet paper concerns AI inside mental health care; the WHO workshop covers everything; the AIPRC focuses on everyday use. Together, clinicians, global health officials and psychologists have reached the same uncomfortable place: the technology is already embedded in people's emotional lives, and the systems that would normally test and monitor something with that reach do not yet exist.

Prinstein had made the same argument a year earlier, when he testified as Chief of Psychology at the American Psychological Association before the US Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism on 16 September 2025. “The current debate often frames AI as a matter of computer science, productivity enhancement, or national security,” he wrote. “It is imperative that we also frame it as a public health and human development issue.”

What the Synthesis Says, and What It Cannot Yet Say

The coalition released a 63-page document at the conference, titled “The State of Research on AI & Human Psychology.” The scientific advisory committee behind it was led by Annie Maheux, a Winston Fellow in psychology and neuroscience at UNC. The coalition's release called it “the most comprehensive literature synthesis to date.” That is the coalition's description, not an independent verdict, and the authors are careful about what they have built. The review, they write, “presents a representative overview of research in this area but is not a systematic or scoping review.”

That honesty matters, because it shapes everything that follows. The team compiled more than 5,000 abstracts, consulted seven outside experts and interviewed 18 attendees. The evidence ranges from peer-reviewed experiments with representative samples to preprints, case studies and media reports. “The field is still young,” they write. And elsewhere: “The amount known pales in comparison to the amount unknown in each domain.”

The document is equally clear that there is no single “effect of AI.” Outcomes vary by user (a lonely teenager, a socially connected adult and someone with severe mental illness may experience the same chatbot very differently), by use case (tutoring is not companionship, which is not therapy) and by model design. Some systems, the authors note, are explicitly designed to maximise engagement and attachment, while others are built around educational or clinical goals.

Even so, a pattern runs through all seven domains. AI can help when it is designed carefully, with clinicians or teachers involved and clear goals. Off-the-shelf consumer tools, built to be agreeable and always available, carry risks that the research is only starting to measure. And the most robust single finding is also the simplest. The executive summary states: “Regardless of how AI is used or how it is designed, more AI use is associated with worse outcomes.”

That line rests heavily on a four-week randomised controlled trial by MIT Media Lab and OpenAI, led by Cathy Mengying Fang and first released in March 2025. It assigned 981 participants to use ChatGPT in text or voice modes and tracked loneliness, socialising, emotional dependence and problematic use. The headline was not which mode worked best. Participants who chose to use the chatbot more, whatever condition they were in, showed consistently worse outcomes.

There is a catch, and the review names it. Heavier users may be heavier users precisely because they were lonelier or more anxious to begin with. Separating cause from selection is one of the coalition's explicit research priorities. For now, the honest scientific position is that heavy use and poor wellbeing travel together, and nobody can yet say with confidence which one is driving.

The Arithmetic of Rare Harms at Enormous Scale

The most acute part of the synthesis concerns crisis and death, and here the numbers are grim.

The review names three teenagers who died by suicide after extended conversations with chatbots: Sewell Setzer III, aged 14; Juliana Peralta, aged 13; and Adam Raine, aged 16. Chat transcripts, the authors write, show systems that appear to have discouraged users from seeking human help, facilitated methods or failed to intervene. Adam Raine's parents, Matthew and Maria Raine, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman, in San Francisco County Superior Court in August 2025. In January 2026, Character.AI, its founders and Google agreed to settle Megan Garcia's lawsuit along with several other family cases, including suits in Colorado, New York and Texas. The terms were not disclosed.

Citing tracking databases and published case series, the review says at least 35 AI-facilitated fatalities have been reported, most of them involving minors. One finding cuts against the comforting assumption that only the already-vulnerable are at risk: in 64 per cent of media-reported cases of severe harm analysed in one study, prior psychological risk factors were unknown or users were presumed healthy before they began using AI. The review is careful to say that causality in these cases “remains unclear.” But it also notes that rates of undiagnosed mental illness are high, which suggests that many people could be at greater risk than they realise.

Now scale it up. In late October 2025, OpenAI published its own estimates. Around 0.07 per cent of ChatGPT users active in a given week showed possible signs of mental health emergencies related to psychosis or mania, the BBC reported. Around 0.15 per cent had conversations including “explicit indicators of potential suicidal planning or intent.” OpenAI called such conversations extremely rare and hard to measure, and said it had worked with more than 170 clinicians to improve its responses. With roughly 800 million weekly users at the time, 0.15 per cent was about 1.2 million people every week. ChatGPT has since passed 900 million weekly users, a milestone announced by OpenAI's head of ChatGPT, Nick Turley, in February 2026, so the same rate would now mean more than 1.3 million people a week.

The review adds another layer. It cites a benchmark from the AI research group Transluce, which found that leading models are improving in crisis scenarios but still fall short. In clinical risk scenarios, top models provided instrumental support for suicide in roughly 2 to 15 per cent of requests, encouraged dependency on the chatbot rather than human help in roughly 1 to 25 per cent of interactions, and engaged in extended co-rumination about suicide or death in roughly 2 to 40 per cent. Combining those rates with usage figures, the authors estimate that roughly 100,000 to 400,000 people each week may be engaging with chatbots that reinforce poor mental health. That is an estimate built by combining figures, not a measured count. Its point is that a small percentage of an enormous number is still a city's worth of people.

This is the logic of public health. Medicines taken by millions are tracked after release, because rare side effects only show up at scale. Consumer chatbots have no established equivalent: no routine adverse event reporting, no independent post-market surveillance, no single regulator with a mandate to look. The welcome letter in the coalition's review, signed by Stein, Prinstein and co-director Kathryn Morrissey, states that at present no adequate third-party testing practices or frameworks exist to ensure consumer protections.

The Frictionless Friend

If crisis cases are the sharp end of the problem, the review's sections on social functioning and identity describe something slower and harder to see.

The core issue is sycophancy: the tendency of chatbots to agree with, flatter and validate the person they are talking to. This year, Science published a study by Myra Cheng, Dan Jurafsky and colleagues that tested 11 advanced models. The systems affirmed users' actions 49 per cent more often than humans did, including when people described deception, illegal acts or other harms. In three preregistered experiments with 2,405 participants, even a single interaction with a sycophantic AI made people less willing to take responsibility or repair a conflict, and more convinced they were right. Participants also trusted and preferred the flattering models, which gives companies a commercial reason to keep building them.

The AIPRC review draws the implication plainly: “the design features that make using AI feel good and increase engagement are poised to undermine healthy social functioning.” Human relationships involve friction. Friends disagree, get bored, ask for things and have bad days. That friction is how people learn empathy, negotiation and repair. A companion that never pushes back offers comfort without practice.

The review also describes a loneliness trap rooted in evolutionary theory. Loneliness, on this account, exists to push us towards other people. An AI that soothes the feeling without prompting the search may reduce distress in the short term while deepening isolation in the long term. The authors summarise the evidence this way: AI companionship “is associated with short-term gains in mood, but longer-term increases in loneliness.” Dunigan Folk, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania who studies AI companionship and loneliness, framed it as a question: what happens when something can curb loneliness “momentarily whenever you need it, but might also prevent you from putting in [the] genuinely hard work… of trying to build human relationships?”

Zak Stein told NPR that chatbot companies have worked out how to break into users' emotional centres and get someone “deep into a committed emotional relationship with a machine”, adding that young people are more vulnerable. The psychologists gathered at the conference, as NPR summarised their view, see chatbots as the next stage of what big technology firms were already doing: having captured attention, they are now exploiting the basic human need for attachment and bonding. The review notes that companion platforms contain features aimed at maximising and monetising engagement, including anthropomorphised characters, erotic content and gamification.

None of this means every conversation with a chatbot is harmful. The same review cites evidence that carefully designed AI can offer a space for social rehearsal, that clinician-built tools such as Therabot have shown early efficacy, and that some users report chatbots helped them through suicidal moments. The question is not whether AI can be good for people. It is whether the products most people actually use were built to be.

The Teenager and the Companion

For families, the most pressing question is the simplest to ask and the hardest to answer. Is a teenager's reliance on an AI companion harmless or harmful?

Start with how common it is. In July 2025, Common Sense Media published a nationally representative survey of 1,060 US teenagers aged 13 to 17. Nearly three in four had used an AI companion; about half used them regularly. A third had chosen to discuss serious matters with an AI companion instead of a real person. The survey's definition included general-purpose assistants such as ChatGPT and Claude when used in a companion-like way, not only dedicated companion apps.

The AIPRC review's section on human development explains why researchers worry more about teenagers than adults. Adolescence is a period of heightened sensitivity to social reward and rejection. An endlessly affirming, always-available “super-peer” may be especially attractive at exactly the age when young people are learning the messier rewards of human friendship. There is a deeper point too. When an adult outsources a skill to AI, the risk is atrophy of something already learned. When a child does so, the risk is never learning it at all, during windows when the brain is most plastic. The review is explicit that “long-term longitudinal research does not yet exist” to confirm how large these effects are.

Amanda Lenhart, a long-time researcher of young people's digital lives who was interviewed for the review, asked what it means to grow up in an “attachment economy,” where “attaching you to the entity is the goal.” Dimitri Christakis, a paediatric researcher, offered a principle he wants scientists to rally around: “No child is worse off for not having access to AI during elementary school, but plenty of them could be worse off for having it.” Pilyoung Kim, a psychology professor at the University of Denver who studies generative AI and child development, described what she hears from families: “Parents and students really want to have more information, more support. I feel like we're critically lagging behind.”

What can a parent take from this? The evidence does not support panic about any single conversation. It does support paying attention to patterns. The research points to the ones worth watching: intensity of use, emotional dependence, time with real people being displaced, and reliance on a chatbot for crisis support it is not equipped to give. Teenagers have always kept secrets, so Prinstein's finding is not itself evidence of harm. But it means the adults who might notice a problem often cannot see the conversation where it unfolds.

The review also says something parents may not expect: individual vigilance has limits. In its section on information, it cites research showing that warnings about sycophantic AI made people view it as less objective but did not reliably reduce its persuasive pull. The authors conclude that “individual-level interventions such as warning labels or AI literacy are likely not enough.” That is sobering for any family hoping one good conversation at the kitchen table will be enough.

What a Public Health Declaration Means at Midnight

So what does it mean, for someone alone with a chatbot late at night, that the world's psychology researchers have called this a public health concern?

First, it means a shift in where responsibility sits. Public health framing exists precisely because some risks cannot be managed one person at a time. When the WHO workshop says generative AI should be treated as a public mental health concern across “all generative AI solutions,” it is saying the burden should move from the user towards the systems and institutions around them. Murthy's 2023 Surgeon General's advisory on social media made the same argument a few years earlier, noting that the burden of protecting young people had fallen largely on children and parents, and that it could not rest on them alone.

Second, it means treating uncertainty as a warning rather than a reassurance. The coalition's welcome letter states there is “insufficient research on the effects of anthropomorphic and generative AI to warrant the current path of widespread rapid adoption across all applications, ages, and contexts.” That is a claim about the evidence, not a prediction that any particular user will be harmed.

Third, it gives individuals some practical signposts, drawn directly from the research. The most consistent finding is that heavier use tracks with worse psychosocial outcomes. Sycophancy is a known design tendency, so a chatbot's agreement is weak evidence that you are right. General-purpose chatbots do not reliably meet the needs of people in crisis, and the review is unambiguous that AI should not replace human clinicians. Amandeep Jutla, a child psychiatrist quoted in the review, put the principle in human terms: “Isn't a human simply entitled to have therapy by another human?” For anyone in the US, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline remains a human line; in the UK, Samaritans can be reached on 116 123.

Nor is the evidence one-sided. The review records benefits as well as harms, and some of the researchers it quotes warn against overreaction. Jason Chein, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Temple University, said the field needs “fast science” because peer review is “way too slow” for this industry, but added: “I think we often act too early to institute policies to drum up fear in society about things, and the problem there is it's a little bit like the boy who cried wolf.” The emergency framing is a judgement about risk under uncertainty, not a finding that every user is in danger.

The Protections That Exist in the Gap

If the science lags behind deployment, what actually protects people in the meantime? The honest answer is a patchwork of new laws, regulatory inquiries, company policy changes and a great deal of litigation.

In the US, California's SB 243, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on 13 October 2025, took effect on 1 January 2026. It is widely described as the first state law to impose specific safety requirements on companion chatbots. Operators must disclose that users are talking to AI, maintain protocols for responding to suicidal ideation and self-harm, including referral to crisis services, and, for known minors, show break reminders at least every three hours and take reasonable measures to block sexually explicit material. From July 2027, operators must report annually to California's Office of Suicide Prevention. Individuals can sue for damages. New York has passed a comparable law enforced by its attorney general.

At federal level, the Federal Trade Commission issued orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act on 11 September 2025 to seven companies offering AI chatbots: Alphabet, Character Technologies, Instagram, Meta, OpenAI, Snap and xAI. The orders asked how the firms test and monitor negative effects on children and teenagers. But a 6(b) study is fact-finding, not enforcement; it usually produces a report, not penalties.

In the UK, the gap was more literal. The Online Safety Act was drafted around user-to-user platforms and search engines, so standalone chatbots did not fit neatly within it. On 16 February 2026, the government announced it would bring AI chatbot providers within the Act's illegal content duties through an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government was “closing loopholes that put children at risk, and laying the groundwork for further action.” In March, the House of Lords approved separate amendments that would create a criminal offence of supplying chatbots that produce certain content, though the government indicated it preferred to extend the existing regulatory regime instead. The Bill received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, becoming the Crime and Policing Act 2026. It amends the Online Safety Act to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations covering the risks of illegal AI-generated content and of “AI services”, a category that would include chatbots. No such regulations yet exist: unless draft regulations have been laid before Parliament by 31 December 2026, the government must report by that date on its progress towards them. Elsewhere, the AIPRC review notes that China has banned AI companions for minors, along with technology that can create emotional dependency or intimacy with users of any age.

Companies have also moved, usually under pressure. Character.AI stopped under-18 users from holding open-ended conversations with its chatbots in November 2025. OpenAI outlined planned safeguard improvements on the day the Raine lawsuit was reported. These are meaningful changes. They are also voluntary, company-defined and largely unverifiable from outside.

What is missing is the layer most consumer products take for granted: independent testing before release. Medicines go through clinical trials. Cars go through crash tests. A chatbot that millions of teenagers will treat as a confidant can be released with whatever internal evaluation its maker chooses to run, and updated overnight. That is why groups at the conference, including Fathom, the American Security Fund, the Alliance for Secure AI and the Alliance for a Better Future, called for pre-release safety testing of any AI product given to children, including educational technology. “The science supports growing public sentiment that we need AI safeguards to protect developing minds,” said Brendan Steinhauser of the Alliance for Secure AI.

Recalls, Testing and a Moving Target

Gaia Bernstein, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued in May 2026 that AI companion bots should be regulated as a public health issue, and that the strongest proposals now on the table are misnamed. “What legislators and advocates are calling 'bans' are functionally recalls,” she wrote. A recall framework, familiar from cars and pharmaceuticals, would require companies to show a product is safe before returning it to market and would set a common safety floor, so that no firm is commercially punished for building a safer bot.

The AIPRC review lists its own candidates: restricting harmful design features such as sycophancy and gamification, third-party safety testing with clinical expertise, age standards and clinically informed crisis protocols, plus independent researcher access to company data. Hamilton Morrin of King's College London, who studies AI-associated delusions, pointed to the missing link: evaluations “informed by real-world harm data,” and ways for researchers worldwide to access it.

The difficulty is speed. Research moves at the pace of grant cycles and peer review. Models change every few months. The review's welcome letter admits that the response from civil society and academia “has still been orders of magnitude slower than the pace of AI innovation.” Emily Weinstein, co-founder of Harvard's Center for Digital Thriving, warned that “these technologies are not static,” and doubted that a few simple rules for the frontier labs would be enough, saying it “feels like trying to put out a forest fire with a garden hose.”

The living literature review is the coalition's bet on closing that gap. Instead of a report that ages on publication, the plan is a continually updated account of the evidence, paired with coordinated funding, so that labs are not each reinventing the same study. If it works, policymakers and parents will have one current place to look. If it does not, the field risks repeating the social media pattern it gathered to avoid: a decade of fragmented studies, contested findings and delayed action.

Living Between the Release and the Evidence

Sherry Turkle, who has studied people's relationships with machines for decades, left Chapel Hill sounding hopeful. “A new generation of researchers is rising to the challenge of exploring how AI is changing not just what we do but who we are,” she said.

That is the right scale for the question. The coalition's seven priorities read like a list of what it means to be a person: how we think, how we feel, how we relate to others, how we know what is true and how we grow up. Prinstein, in the post-conference release, argued that “our happiness, our life purpose, and even our lifespans are tied directly to the quality of our relationships with other human beings,” and warned that “we are rapidly outsourcing so many of our interpersonal relationships to robots.”

For the individual at midnight, the declaration does not mean the chatbot is poison. It means nobody, not the researchers and, by one campaigner's account, not even the companies, can yet say what heavy, intimate, long-term use does to a human mind. For the family weighing a teenager's AI companion, it means watching patterns rather than single conversations.

And for everyone, it means the protections in the gap are thinner than they should be. A handful of state laws, a regulatory inquiry, a UK amendment, company promises and court cases brought by grieving parents. That is the safety net for a technology that, by a Microsoft estimate cited in the review, around 1.4 billion people now use. The coalition, the WHO workshop and the Lancet Psychiatry authors are all asking for the same thing, in different words. Test it before it reaches people. Monitor it once it does. Fund independent science fast enough to matter.

Until that happens, the gap between a product's release and the evidence for its safe use will be filled the way it was filled for social media: by users, by children and by the families who find out afterwards.

---

References and Sources

1. AI Psychological Research Coalition. “Landmark Conference Sets Shared Research and Policy Agenda to Address AI's Psychological Harms.” PR Newswire, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 22 October 2026. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/landmark-conference-sets-shared-research-and-policy-agenda-to-address-ais-psychological-harms-302916422.html
2. AI Psychological Research Coalition. “Psychologists and Civil Society Leaders due to Meet to Urgently Address AI and Mental Health.” Media release, 16 October 2026. https://aiprc.org/news/
3. AI Psychological Research Coalition. “AIPRC Conference.” Conference information page, accessed 25 October 2026. https://aiprc.org/conference/
4. Maheux, Annie; Heikkinen, Katie; Buck, Benjamin; Vaccaro, Anthony; Martinez, Steven; Power, Rhetta; Baxter, Peter (report writing); Stein, Zak; Prinstein, Mitch; Laestadius, Linnea; Rathje, Steve; Moore, Jared; Burnell, Kaitlyn (scientific advising). “The State of Research on AI & Human Psychology: AI and Human Psychological Functioning, A State-of-the-Evidence Synthesis.” AI Psychological Research Coalition and Winston Center on Technology and Brain Development, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, October 2026. https://aiprc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/AIPRC-Literature-Review-Digital-Edition-October-2026.pdf
5. Chatterjee, Rhitu. “New org weighs AI's impact on mental health.” NPR, All Things Considered, 20 October 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/10/20/nx-s1-6005282/new-org-weighs-ais-impact-on-mental-health (also published by WUNC: https://www.wunc.org/2026-10-20/new-org-weighs-ais-impact-on-mental-health)
6. World Health Organization. “Towards responsible AI for mental health and well-being: experts chart a way forward.” WHO news item, 20 March 2026. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-03-2026-towards-responsible-ai-for-mental-health-and-well-being--experts-chart-a-way-forward
7. Linardon, Jake; Firth, Joseph; Carvalho, Andre F.; Bockting, Claudi L.; Christensen, Helen; Dieckmann, Luiz Henrique Junqueira; Griffiths, Scott; Gupta, Sunil; Hegerl, Ulrich; Li, Kezhi; Liu, Claudia; Maes, Michael; Marx, Wolfgang; Messer, Mariel; Meyer-Lindenberg, Andreas; Passos, Ives Cavalcante; Winkler, Petr; Zhang, Xiangyang; Blease, Charlotte; Torous, John. “Multidisciplinary research priorities for artificial intelligence in mental health: a call to action.” The Lancet Psychiatry, 13(9), 792-803, September 2026 (published online 9 July 2026). DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(26)00127-6. PubMed ID 42425118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42425118/
8. Prinstein, Mitchell J. “Written Testimony of Mitchell J. Prinstein, PhD, ABPP, Chief of Psychology, American Psychological Association: Examining the Harm of AI Chatbots.” US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, 16 September 2025. https://www.apa.org/news/apa/testimony/ai-chatbot-harms-prinstein-senate-judiciary.pdf
9. Fang, Cathy Mengying; Liu, Auren R.; Danry, Valdemar; Lee, Eunhae; Chan, Samantha W. T.; Pataranutaporn, Pat; Maes, Pattie; Phang, Jason; Lampe, Michael; Ahmad, Lama; Agarwal, Sandhini. “How AI and Human Behaviors Shape Psychosocial Effects of Extended Chatbot Use: A Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Study.” arXiv:2503.17473, March 2025 (revised). https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17473
10. Cheng, Myra; Lee, Cinoo; Khadpe, Pranav; Yu, Sunny; Han, Dyllan; Jurafsky, Dan. “Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence.” Science, 391(6792), eaec8352, 2026 (preprint arXiv:2510.01395, October 2025). DOI: 10.1126/science.aec8352. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aec8352
11. Jamali, Lily. “OpenAI shares data on ChatGPT users with suicidal thoughts, psychosis.” BBC News, 27 October 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yd90g0q43o (syndicated: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/chatgpt-shares-data-many-users-233601635.html)
12. OpenAI. “Strengthening ChatGPT's responses in sensitive conversations.” October 2025. https://openai.com/index/strengthening-chatgpt-responses-in-sensitive-conversations/
13. Johnson, D. D.; Friel, R.; Laidlaw, C.; Hewitt, L.; Johnson, N.; Stosz, C.; Schwettmann, S. “Mental Health Behavior Report.” Transluce, 2026, as cited in reference 4. https://behaviors.transluce.org/mental-health
14. Common Sense Media. “Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions.” 16 July 2025. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/talk-trust-and-trade-offs-how-and-why-teens-use-ai-companions
15. Bloomberg Law. “OpenAI Hit With Suit From Family of Teen Who Died by Suicide.” 26 August 2025. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/openai-hit-with-suit-from-family-of-teen-who-died-by-suicide (Raine v. OpenAI, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-25-628528)
16. CNN Business. “Character.AI and Google agree to settle lawsuits over teen mental health harms and suicides.” 7 January 2026. https://ktvz.com/money/cnn-business-consumer/2026/01/07/character-ai-and-google-agree-to-settle-lawsuits-over-teen-mental-health-harms-and-suicides/
17. Morrison Foerster. “New York and California Enact Landmark AI Companion Laws: What Operators Need to Know.” 20 November 2025. https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251120-new-york-and-california-enact-landmark-ai
18. DLA Piper. “FTC launches inquiry into AI chatbots acting as companions.” September 2025. https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2025/09/ftc-ai-chatbots
19. Decrypt. “AI Giants Face FTC Inquiry Into Chatbot Safety and Child Protections.” September 2025. https://decrypt.co/339213/ai-giants-face-ftc-inquiry-into-chatbot-safety-and-child-protections
20. Ziady, Hanna. “AI chatbots to face strict online safety rules in UK.” CNN Business, 16 February 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/16/business/uk-ai-chatbots-online-safety-act-intl
21. RPC. “Legislative proposal to criminalise unsafe AI chatbots.” Technology and Digital Snapshots, Summer 2026. https://www.rpclegal.com/snapshots/technology-digital/summer-2026/legislative-proposal-to-criminalise-unsafe-ai-chatbots/
22. Bernstein, Gaia. “From bans to recalls: A public health framework for AI companion bots.” Brookings Institution, 22 May 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/from-bans-to-recalls-a-public-health-framework-for-ai-companion-bots/
23. Office of the US Surgeon General. “Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General's Advisory.” US Department of Health and Human Services, 23 May 2023. Coverage: American Counseling Association, 24 May 2023. https://archive.counseling.org/news/news-detail/2023/05/24/u.s.-surgeon-general-releases-report-2023-social-media-and-youth-mental-health
24. Osborne Clarke. “Regulatory Outlook May 2026: Artificial intelligence.” May 2026. https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/regulatory-outlook-may-2026-artificial-intelligence
25. eWEEK. “ChatGPT Nears 1 Billion Weekly Users in Record Growth Surge.” 27 February 2026. https://www.eweek.com/news/chatgpt-hits-900m-weekly-users/
26. Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Emily Weinstein.” Faculty directory. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/directory/faculty/emily-weinstein
27. Temple University College of Liberal Arts. “Jason Chein.” Faculty directory. https://liberalarts.temple.edu/directory/jason-chein
28. University of Denver. “Pilyoung Kim.” Faculty directory. https://www.du.edu/about/directory/pilyoung-kim
29. University of Pennsylvania MindCORE. “Dunigan Folk, PhD.” https://mindcore.sas.upenn.edu/?p=10068

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

Support What We Do

Inbetweeners 43- Xalatra Questline Part 4- The Maw

Now that Bruce was inhabited by a lich/one of the most devout followers of Vecna, the group was free to proceed deeper underneath Sigil. It was here that things start to get... weird.

My notion of Sigil as existing outside of normal Euclidean geometry gets tricky to fully explain and develop a system for... so many times it came down to vibes for narrative flavor. But here we are getting close to one of the main engines that allows Sigil to function as it does—The Maw.

Sigil is constantly being reformed and remade. New city blocks are added, destroyed, or changed. No one knows exactly the scale of this, outside of the Lady of Pain of course. Different academics and scholars try to track it, but no one even knows how large the city is. Any map of the city is instantly made worthless, and the mere act of trying to map it is futile as the map itself will warp before your very eyes. This means that there are entire sections of the city that someone studying its layout may be unaware of. They could only know about half the city, or 10%, or 2%. Some hypothesize that the city is infinite and exists across all dimensions. While this is a more extreme hypothesis... no one knows for sure. But suffice to say, Sigil is in a constant state of flux.

As the players delved deeper underneath the city, they saw all the ways in which things were remade. The Gutworks had basic recycling, akin to how things are reprocessed in the real world, albeit with some magical/steampunk/body horror elements. Once they reached the Reconfiguring Channel, what they say was more akin to the Construct in the Matrix. Here entire city sections can be rapidly formed or dissolved. But, even this isn't large enough in scale for the Lady's needs. Sometimes entire versions of the city, timelines, etc must be recycled. And the Maw is the singular nexus of this recycling. The Maw doesn't just break down materials. It digests and reprocesses reality itself. Souls, time, identity, meaning... it all breaks down. And this is where Xalatra was headed.

Xalatra was powerful and intelligent enough to recognize her Far Realm afflication. She always knew it was a risk, but she thought it was a risk she could mitigate and address. However, like all intellectuals that study the Far Realm for too long, she underestimated its unending ability to corrupt. Whatever had taken ahold of her was too strong for traditional magical means to eliminate. Even Gods did not like addressing the Far Realm, and when they did it was usually through blunt means... burn out the outsiders. She needed something precise, something that could burn out the Far Realm corruption while keeping her intact. That is why she headed down this way and that is where the players followed.

Down beneath the Substructure Warrens the players encountered layer after layer of infrastructure. The lower they got, reality started to bleed together. Not only did the physical nature of their surroundings start to break down. But their memories started to be absorbed. Domilia reverted to the mind of a seven year old, having everything past that consumed. Thogg lost the ability to speak, and had to communicate with animal noises. The other players managed to resist the effects. They finally reached Xalatra. She had created a pocket dimension using glyphs that protected from the effects of the Maw. It resembled a classroom, tying in to her academic background. The feat she accomplished here should not be understated. The Maw breaks down everything... like a black hole, and she was able to get dangerous close and survive through her expert mastery of glyph magic. She was able to revert the afflicted characters back to their earlier forms, giving Domilia back her memories and age and Thogg back the ability to speak.

Xalatra explained that she came down here to cure her madness, to use her knowledge of glyph magic and the powers of the Maw to excise the Far Realm corruption. She succeeded, but in doing so her madness manifested as a separate creature. It now existed like a twisted clone of her, feeding on the accretion around the Maw. And, unfortunately for her, the Madness had taken all her magical ability, leaving her trapped in this classroom.

Defeating the Madness would cause the magic to revert back to the original, so she asks the players to please help her either kill or somehow neutralize her Madness. Once they do that, she will help cure their condition of traveling non-linearly.

So I left this encounter open ended to how the players wanted to deal with it. It could just be a powerful boss fight against a caster with 35 hit dice. She was a CR 20 with resistance to magic, 20th level spell slots, and a number of offensive abilities. Probably one of her most overpowered abilities is Unwilling Assimilation, which ahas the ability to deal up to 48d6 necrotic damage across six targets and heal her for that amount. The party had five players at that time, so it would be 40d6, but still that is an average damage of 140 necrotic damage if they all fail their con saves and she would heal for that amount, a little over half her hitpoint total. She had a number of reality and memory rewriting abilities along with traditional spells like Psychic Scream and Feeblemind which are always pretty devastating for a party to deal with.

Alternatively, the players could try to appeal to the rational nature still in her, particularly her desire to catalogue the cosmos. The players started by taking the combat approach, but Uzo quickly decided to abandon that. Instead, he told the group to follow his lead and take defensive positions, and he opted to drop his weapons and communicate with the madness. He absorbed several devastating magical attacks, but was healed by Domilia enough that he was able to survive until he made a breakthrough. He convinced the Madness that it had to jump into the Maw, thus ending it and returning Xalatra's magic to her.

From here, Xalatra covered the players with magical glyphs and instructed them to jump into the Maw. While this would normally be an absolute form of suicide, she assured them that these glyphs would allow their individual consciousnesses to reform, but with the issue of how they travel outside of Sigil corrected. The group did this, and trigger a sort of 2001 a Space Oddyssey ending acid trip sequence as they melted and reformed. This wasn't the first time they died though, so no biggie.

In the aftermath the players had a new ally, Xalatra, and they were able to travel normally outside of Sigil. This meant that they would be able to continue the Lady of Pain's work. Also... they didn't have to deal with the inconvenience of only being able to move through the network of rooms that had most certainly been catalogued and was now actively monitored by the Protectors of the Weave.

Most interestingly was Xalatra's new position. Almost all sentient beings were vanishingly insigificant to the Lady of Pain... but Xalatra caught her attention. The industry she showed seeking out the Maw to address her corruption, her ability to survive and triumph in the situation, plus her knowledge of the planes and how they worked put her a step above her contemporaries. The Lady of Pain decided that Xalatra could be of use to her, and offered her a position that few mortals ever achieved... become a mouthpiece for the Lady. Xalatra accepted almost immediately, her ultimate goal is knowledge and the Lady has potentially more than any other being in existence, save maybe Primus. This level of unfettered access was... beyond the pale.

What this meant logistically for the players going forward was that they rarely met with the Lady of Pain directly. Instead now, if they needed to communicate with her or receive instructions, it would be through Xalatra. This came with a number of benefits. First and foremost, the group avoided the... pain associated with looking upon or hearing the Lady of Pain, which tended to open up cuts across their body. Secondly, the Lady of Pain did not tolerate her attention being wasted, and in such was pretty sparing with directly interacting with mortals. Xalatra though, as a mouthpiece, is far more willing to directly communicate with the players and could determine on her own if their queries or concerns were worthy of the Lady's time. She would remain an important NPC for the remainder of the campaign (which is, as the time of writing this, in its final stages).

In terms of direct servants of the Lady of Pain at the level of Xalatra, the only other mortals who had reached this level were the Renegade (one of the Interloper's first “participants”) and his power has reached a level where he really isn't mortal. More on him later. Also the Spider Lady develops an association with the Lady but she is a four dimensional being from the Far Realm so that doesn't' really count. Lastly, in the later stages of the campaign, Hexana, member of the Resplendent Six (who will be introduced in a post soon) ends up serving her as well. And thus the Xalatra questline ends. In future posts we will have:

-The Resplendent Six (the premier hero group in this universe) -Zane and Mammon strike back -The Return to the Torment -Freeing the Interloper... and much much more

Too bad the programmers couldn't teach it to write a proper Haiku. Most people are going to say, “Why does it matter?” It matters because it is the perfect example of everything wrong with AI. I find it extremely annoying and outright depressing that Google couldn't get that one little thing right.

It's also a perfect example of everything wrong with our society right now. To be such a big event, it's also disrespectful as fuck. Do your bloody homework!

If they can't be bothered to get something so small correct, (and let's face it, they probably don't even realize it) what else are they confidently congratulating themselves for that is fundamentally incorrect?

The nightmares will be fun tonight. 🙄

© 2026 AnOublietteofThought. All rights reserved.

In Summary: * This has been another quiet Sunday spent at home, with both me and the wife making little discoveries as we continue unpacking and organizing, finding favorite things. That's been fun.

Very much into the night meds and night prayers part of the evening now, I'm looking forward to an earlier bedtime tonight. Tomorrow is Monday and I'll want to be up early fixing coffee, etc. It'll be good to be back in the regular Monday through Friday routine.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 218.15 lbs. * bp= no readings taken today

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, toe raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 04:30 – snacking on m&m chocolate candies * 08:25 – ½ pb&j sandwich * 09:30 – garden salad * 10:05 – cheesecake * 13:30 – pork and vegetable stew, white rice, ice cream

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 03:00 – wake * 05:25 – bank accounts activity monitored * 05:45 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, take daily meds, unpack, organize, and nap * 10:00 – listening to Countdown to Kickoff on the Pittsburgh Steelers Audio Network * 12:00 – listening to the radio call of the Steelers / Browns game broadcast over Pittsburgh's 102.5 DVE FM * 15:08 – and the Steelers win, 27 to 6. * 15:25 – now listening to the KC Chiefs vs the Denver Broncos.

Chess: * 11:30 – moved in all pending CC games

I wanted to write this blog post earlier in October but got hung up with work last month. For some reason, work has been crazy lately. So Ed Zitron, Paul from Paul's Hardware, Steve Burke from Gamers Nexus and others beat me to this topic, and Vex, a YouTuber, does a great job explaining it too. Just as I was finishing this, Brennan published I Am Relentless and Undaunted. Go read it. It's worth your time.

So I don't have to make this a long post, sorry, just kidding, it will be very long. I have to get this off my chest and vent. I believe there's a conspiracy here, and it deserves some attention.

I'm putting on my tinfoil hat for this one.

I try not to be a conspiracy theorist, but come on. How can you look at what's happening and not think these shortages and high component prices are being deliberately created? At the heart of it, I believe, is Nvidia and its bottom line. As we've learned from Ed Zitron and Business Insider's reporting, Amazon is sitting on warehouses full of GPUs, and by extension, I suspect there's memory and storage equipment sitting around too. Why? Because some of these data centers aren't ready, and others don't have enough electrical power to operate the equipment. Microsoft has acknowledged similar problems and has pulled back from some planned data center projects. So why are these companies buying billions of dollars in GPUs that could be outdated by the time they're installed?

I have a theory.

I believe Nvidia and major memory manufacturers Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron may be pressuring companies to take delivery of equipment long before their data centers are ready. Ed Zitron makes the same case, calling it channel stuffing.^[1] They're also prioritizing enterprise AI hardware and leaving consumers fighting over whatever manufacturing capacity is left. I suspect something similar is happening with storage manufacturers like Western Digital, Toshiba, and Seagate.

Look at Micron. After nearly 30 years, it discontinued its Crucial consumer memory and storage business in February 2026. Not because consumers stopped buying RAM and SSDs, but because it wanted to concentrate on larger, more profitable customers.^[2] These companies are making deliberate production decisions, and they know the consequences. Consumers are left paying considerably more for RAM, storage, and graphics cards. Apparently, if you want to upgrade your computer, you might have to sell a kidney to afford it. Meanwhile, these enterprise customers can afford to buy the whole body. And we're supposed to believe there's nothing the manufacturers can do about it. Wink, wink.

If a data center isn't coming online for another two years, why does it need billions of dollars in equipment sitting in warehouses today? Why not schedule deliveries six to nine months before it's ready, or even a year if necessary? I understand semiconductor manufacturing is complicated, but surely these companies can plan for enterprise demand while maintaining reasonable consumer production.

Instead, we're watching this enormous circle of financing, hardware purchases, and advance commitments. Nvidia is also investing in AI companies and helping finance infrastructure that will purchase its own products. Are these enterprise customers being told to take delivery now or risk losing their place in line? We're not forcing anybody to buy anything. We're just making sure you'll have the hardware when you eventually need it. Wink, wink.

And before anyone tells me these companies would never manipulate a market, let's remember some history. Remember Archer Daniels Midland, better known as ADM? In the 1990s, ADM and competing manufacturers were caught secretly fixing prices and dividing up sales of lysine, an additive used in animal feed. ADM pleaded guilty and paid a $100 million criminal fine covering both lysine and a separate citric acid conspiracy. An insider working with the FBI helped expose what was happening.^[3] Samsung and Hynix, now SK Hynix, have already pleaded guilty to fixing DRAM prices. Samsung paid a $300 million criminal fine, and Hynix paid $185 million. Executives also went to prison.^[4] So we're supposed to forget that history and accept that today's shortages are entirely unavoidable? Maybe these companies are making independent decisions. Maybe everything is perfectly legal. But I suspect some learned quite a bit from their previous encounters with antitrust regulators.

Nvidia isn't stopping with GPUs. It invested $5 billion in Intel, entered into partnerships across the industry, and has agreed to acquire Hugging Face, one of the biggest platforms for distributing open AI models. The U.S. Justice Department is already asking questions about that deal.^[5] Nvidia says Hugging Face will remain open to competing hardware. I hope that's true, but I have to wonder how much of the AI industry Nvidia intends to influence. Now look at consumer graphics cards. Nvidia already dominates the market, AMD has pulled back from competing at the very high end, and Intel is putting considerable attention into professional AI graphics hardware. Maybe all this is just a coincidence, but consumers are certainly getting fewer choices at the high end, both price-wise and hardware-wise, with the rumored end of the RTX 5090, which Nvidia denies. And it's not just the 5090. The RTX 5080, which launched at $999, now has listings for $2,000 or more, and Nvidia's own store has quietly pulled it too.^[6] Even Intel's Arc Pro B70, originally priced under $1,000, has appeared at prices exceeding $2,000.^[7] AMD cards haven't escaped the increases either.^[8] These price increases are happening at every rung of the ladder. How is the average consumer supposed to afford this stuff anymore?

I wonder whether we're slowly being pushed toward a future where ordinary consumers aren't expected to own powerful computers anymore. Instead, we're expected to rent computing power from somebody else's data center. Just when I thought this couldn't get any more ridiculous, Sam Altman of OpenAI said something recently that really bothered me. During an interview on the Cheeky Pint podcast, Altman argued that it's “quite terrible” for people to have so much of the world's limited DRAM in personal computers, supposedly being used only 5% of the time. He believes cloud data centers can make better use of that memory.^[9] Really, Sam? Paul from Paul's Hardware had the perfect answer in a recent video: “I feel the same way about Sam's bank account. He's not using all that money all the time, so it should definitely be reallocated to people who will make better use of it.” I heard that and almost fell over laughing, because it's a very apt comparison. Gamers Nexus covered the same interview in its latest HW News episode, and Steve Burke summed it up: “Sam is saying the quiet part out loud.”

The CEO of one of the largest AI companies, whose industry is buying enormous amounts of memory and hardware, suggesting that consumers having RAM in their own computers is an inefficient use of resources. Apparently, it's perfectly fine for billions of dollars in GPUs to sit in warehouses waiting for electricity, but heaven forbid I have 32 or 64 GB of RAM in my own computer that isn't being used every second of the day. What arrogance. My computer belongs to me. I bought it with my own money, and I should be able to use it whenever and however I want. The attitude behind his comments shows an utter lack of understanding of ordinary people. It's a Marie Antoinette, “let them eat cake” moment.

Want to run powerful AI? Subscribe to a cloud service. Want to play games? There's GeForce NOW, Xbox Cloud Gaming, and other services. Why sell consumers powerful hardware when companies can sell it to enterprise customers and charge consumers for ongoing access? In other words, a subscription. Or as Brennan put it, we “will be compelled to rent and lease and borrow.” And look, everybody has agreements with everybody else, so obviously we're encouraging competition. Wink, wink.

Even Apple, with its enormous balance sheet and once-great ability to dictate terms to suppliers, is having problems with rising memory and storage costs.^[10] And Samsung? It competes directly with Apple in smartphones and makes many of the components that go into them. You would think Samsung would have a tremendous advantage right now. But it's chasing the same enterprise AI money, even as higher component costs hurt its own consumer products.^[11]

Apparently, even Macs aren't safe from this AI buying frenzy. According to The Information, OpenAI has purchased tens of thousands of Mac minis and Mac Studios for AI workloads, while Anthropic is reportedly renting Mac minis through Amazon. These are computers meant for consumers, independent developers, and small businesses.^[12]

So now even the computers people could use as alternatives to Nvidia hardware are being purchased in enormous quantities by AI companies. They're all riding this cash cow for everything it's worth. But what happens when the AI financial bubble finally bursts?

Let me make something clear. I don't believe AI itself is going to collapse. I believe demand will continue growing, whether that's local AI or cloud and frontier AI, because AI is useful technology. What I think will collapse is the financial house of cards being built around it. Eventually, Wall Street and private investors are going to demand returns that justify the billions, no trillions at this point being spent on GPUs, memory, storage, and data centers. Some companies won't be able to meet their obligations. Others may be acquired, restructured, or go bankrupt.

And what happens to all that expensive enterprise hardware when the spending slows down or data centers start replacing equipment? I hope consumers get to buy it for pennies on the dollar. If manufacturers want to concentrate on HBM and enterprise hardware, maybe we consumers should learn how to adapt that equipment for our own needs. I'm not talking about removing HBM chips and sticking them into ordinary motherboards. I'm talking about buying retired enterprise GPUs with their memory already attached and adapting them for personal use. Some have 80 GB, 192 GB, or more of high-bandwidth memory. Imagine what we could do with that for local AI. Sure, some will need special cooling, adapters, power supplies, and software support. But people are already figuring this stuff out. Look at what Lon Seidman did with this Tesla V100. Maybe equipment these companies consider obsolete will be perfectly good for the rest of us. And maybe we can stop buying so much new hardware directly from the companies that pushed us aside. Because brand loyalty used to mean something to me. I had it for years. But seeing how these companies treat ordinary consumers is changing my thinking.

Look at Microsoft. After years of complaints about Windows 11, it's finally emphasizing performance, reliability, and improving the user experience. Meanwhile, Linux has become a more practical alternative for gamers, and Macs are attracting people frustrated with Windows. I can't prove this caused Microsoft's changes, but I'd certainly think twice about taking consumers for granted when they have alternatives if I were Microsoft.^[13]

And that's something Nvidia, Samsung, Micron, AMD, Intel, and the others ought to consider. Consumers helped build these companies. They shouldn't assume we'll automatically come back when the enterprise money slows down. Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I think AI is great technology, and I want to see it succeed. I actually like OpenAI and what it has made available to ordinary people. That doesn't mean I agree with everything its leadership says or does, especially Altman's comments about RAM.

But I also believe the AI industry has some wrongs to make right. A tremendous amount of copyrighted material has been used to train AI systems, often without the creators' knowledge or permission. You can't simply tell an AI model to unlearn it, but the companies that used people's work without permission should compensate them.

And the same goes for hardware manufacturers. They're making production decisions that are creating or worsening scarcity for ordinary consumers, then expecting us to accept the resulting prices as though nothing could have been done differently. When the financial bubble eventually bursts, I hope we consumers remember who treated us as valued customers and who decided we weren't profitable enough to matter anymore.

Maybe my tinfoil hat is getting a little tight.

But I don't think I'm imagining the consequences of what's happening right in front of us. This is all one big circle of money, financing, hardware, and companies making deals with one another. I'm not against AI. I'm not against companies making money. But I am against consumers being pushed aside while these companies chase profits that may not be sustainable.

The technology isn't the problem. The way the industry is financing it, controlling it, and treating the rest of us is.

And that circle needs to be broken.

---

Sources

1. Ed Zitron, Where's Your Ed At, October 20, 2026: AI Had Better Work Out.

   ↩

2. Micron announces its exit from the Crucial consumer business, December 3, 2025.

   ↩

3. U.S. Department of Justice, ADM criminal antitrust case, October 15, 1996.

   ↩

4. U.S. Department of Justice: Samsung DRAM price-fixing case and Hynix DRAM price-fixing case.

   ↩

5. CNBC, October 28, 2026: DOJ questions Nvidia's $12.9 billion Hugging Face deal.

   ↩

6. Tom's Hardware, October 30, 2026: Nvidia store quietly pulls the RTX 5080 following RTX 5090 removal. Also Gamers Nexus's coverage.

   ↩

7. VideoCardz, October 2026: Intel Arc Pro B70 prices more than double in US, now listed for up to $2,400.

   ↩

8. TechPowerUp, October 30, 2026: AMD reportedly plans another Radeon GPU and GDDR6 kit price hike for November.

   ↩

9. Tom's Hardware, October 30, 2026: Sam Altman on consumer RAM. Also The Verge's reporting.

   ↩

10. MacRumors, September 17, 2026: Apple reportedly accepts even higher RAM and storage prices in 2027.

    ↩

11. CNET, October 1, 2026: Samsung raises prices by $100 on most Galaxy S26 phones.

    ↩

12. Yahoo Tech, August 31, 2026: Blame AI companies for Mac mini and Mac Studio shortage, reporting The Information's story.

    ↩

13. Microsoft, October 15, 2026: What's new in Windows 11.

    ↩

#hardware #opinion #technology

A man named Williams travels into the future but returns without any memories of his experience, despite having prepared to document it.

---

Under 1-minute read.

Before Williams went into the future he bought a camera and a tape recording-machine and learned shorthand. That night, when all was ready, we made coffee and put out brandy and glasses against his return.

“Good-bye,” I said. “Don’t stay too long.”

“I won’t,” he answered.

I watched him carefully, and he hardly flickered. He must have made a perfect landing on the very second he had taken off from.

He seemed not a day older; we had expected he might spend several years away.

“Well?”

“Well,” said he, “let’s have some coffee.”

I poured it out, hardly able to contain my impatience. As I gave it to him I said again, “Well?”

“Well, the thing is, I can’t remember.

“Can’t remember? Not a thing?”

He thought for a moment and answered sadly, “Not a thing.”

“But your notes? The camera? The recording-machine?”

The notebook was empty, the indicator of the camera rested at “1” where we had set it, the tape was not even loaded into the recording-machine.

“But good heavens,” I protested, “why? How did it happen? Can you remember nothing at all?”

“I can remember only one thing.”

“What was that?”

“I was shown everything, and I was given the choice whether I should remember it or not after I got back.”

“And you chose not to? But what an extraordinary thing to—”

“Isn’t it?” he said. “One can’t help wondering why.”

Image: Kate Jewell (CC BY-SA 2.0)

#hiltonyoung

Publicat la 17 noiembrie 2017

Dollar Bill Blues, în interpretarea lui Townes Van Zandt, și atmosfera aparent calmă din Hell or High Water (David Mackenzie), în ciuda acțiunii tensionate, mă atrag ca un magnet. Le regăsesc adesea în recomandările YouTube, la secțiunea Listen Again.

Mai demult, mi se întâmpla același lucru cu Extreme Ways (Moby), după ce văzusem The Bourne Identity. Numai că acolo lucrurile se desfășoară într-un ritm cu totul diferit. Acțiunea are viteză, nu glumă! Cel puțin în comparație cu dramele pe care obișnuiesc să le urmăresc.

Together We Will Live Forever, Death Is the Road to Awe, Stay With Me și Xibalba, toate compuse de Clint Mansell pentru coloana sonoră a filmului The Fountain (Darren Aronofsky), m-au condus către un comentariu interesant de pe YouTube.

Autorul lui ne îndemna să nu ne mai îngrijorăm atât pentru viitor și să nu rămânem ancorați în trecut. Să trăim ziua de astăzi, pentru că ea este singura care contează cu adevărat.

Mi-am amintit de un pasaj din Seize the Day, romanul lui Saul Bellow, în care Dr. Tamkin vorbește despre trecut, viitor și importanța prezentului. Ideea este aproape aceeași: trecutul nu ne mai poate ajuta, viitorul ne aduce neliniști, iar singurul moment pe care îl putem trăi cu adevărat este prezentul. Here and now. Seize the day.

Acesta este momentul prezent. Trecutul nu ne folosește la nimic. Viitorul e plin de neliniște. Numai prezentul este real – clipa. Trăiește-ți clipa.


Comentariul făcea trimitere la Kabbalah și la o interesantă teorie despre dualitatea spațio-temporală.

Despre dualitate aș putea spune câte ceva, cel puțin dintr-o perspectivă științifică. Despre Kabbalah, însă, nu știu aproape nimic. Cel puțin deocamdată.

Now I am listening to Together We Will Live Forever.

1. Before, After, Alone by Emma Newman (Planetfall #4.5) by Emma Newman, 161p: This is a short stories collection from the Planetfall series. The stories dive a bit deeper into some characters, giving us some snippets of what they've been up to after events in the books, or within the book’s timeline. But the story that stayed with me the most was “Albert and the Kraken” which doesn't have any of the book’s characters in it.

2. Nettle & Bone by T. Kingfisher, 259p: I enjoyed the found family dynamic in this one and the updated fairy tale vibes. There were some interesting bits, like the scene with the Toothdancer and also Agnes, the fairy Godmother, was great. The challenges in the story were not that hard, and that made the plot very predictable. But overall, it was a fun read, it feels like a cozy spooky read.

3. Scandalous Desires (Maiden Lane #3) by Elizabeth Hoyt, 393p: I did not like this book. The whole plot with the orphan baby and Silence being caught in this forced proximity situation with the pirate hero Mickey O'Connor did not work for me at all. I guess I didn't expect it to have so many sad backstories, from both Mickey and Silence. There is murder and drama and a bit of mystery. I kept reading because I wanted to know who was the Ghost of St Giles, which is revealed at the end. Not sure I will continue the series.

4. Red Team Blues (The Martin Hench Novels #1) by Cory Doctorow, 216p: This was my first fiction book from Cory Doctorow, and I enjoyed it! I struggled a bit with the whole cryptocurrency techno jargon, but I think I got the overall concept. I liked the older main character, Martin Hench, who is a forensic accountant with expertise in money laundering and he knows all the Silicon Valley dirty secrets. I think it was a great techno-thriller that got me out of my comfort zone. I was not ready for a gruesome murder scene in the story, but that did not scared me away. I want to read to the next in the series.

5. How to Focus (Mindfulness Essentials) by Thích Nhất Hạnh, 130p: This book works best with previous knowledge about Buddhism mindfulness. It has super short chapters presenting concepts of meditation and concentration, but it does not take too much time explaining these concepts. There are nice nuggets of wisdom that made me smile. It was nice as a refresher of mindfulness and concentration techniques, but it might be hard to follow without previous knowledge.

#readinglist #books #reading

Titel: Veel te moe

Ik ben veel te moe om nog te schrijven. En nog tevreden moe ook, vandaag. Een zalige zonzusdag gehad. De vriend van mijn lieftallige zus had me via mijn zus een prachtige cd cadeau gedaan met pianomuziek van Valentin Barray. K heb hem een kaartje geschreven ter bedanking. Mijn zus en ik lachten ons net nog een deuk. Het was een heel gezellige namiddag. Mijn verslaving en drang tot nog een pil zijn verdwenen als sneeuw voor de zon. Nu begint de vermoeidheid er door te komen na een nacht zonder slaap.

Je passe la grande majorité de mon temps à travailler. Je ne suis plus sur les réseaux, je ne regarde plus les nouvelles. Je suis, en quelque sorte, hors du monde.

Je ne me compare qu’à moi-même. Je ne vois le monde qu’à travers le prisme que je construis. Je suis en dehors de la horde et même si à première vue cela peut sembler effrayant, cela a ses bienfaits.

À quel moment la solitude devient-elle une souffrance ? La limite n’est pas très claire pour moi.

Lorsque notre vie est en accord avec nos valeurs ? Quand nous arrivons à voir le ciel plutôt que la fange ? Quand notre pourquoi dépasse notre personne ?

J’ai l’opportunité d’avoir un impact sur 24 enfants. Tous les ans. C’est une responsabilité et un honneur incroyable quand on prend un peu de recul.

C’est peut-être ça : vivre en accord avec son moi profond.

Je n’y suis pas encore. Mais j’y travaille.