2 . As we know, queues (队列) have always been related to the theme park experience. Disliked by many, attractions do their best to stop them from having a bad influence on the guest experience. However, queues remain a necessity for gated attractions with popular rides.

The most obvious problem with queues is that they waste time, and for guests, wasting their limited time during their visit leads to a poor experience. For attraction operators, queues can be a letdown too. Even though long queues might be a sign that business is good, the more time guests spend tied up in long lines, the less opportunity they have to spend money on on-site retail and food offerings.

Thankfully, technology is developing to meet changing guest expectations. Many theme parks are taking guests out of physical queues and putting them into virtual queues through an app or wearable device.

Free from queues, guests are likely to spend their time and money far more freely around the attraction. Even though no one has to wait in line, attractions can still offer queue upgrades within a virtual queue system. According to a recent survey done by Attractions.io, over 84% of theme park visitors said they would rather use virtual queuing.

But queuing isn’t all bad, either. Making a queue part of the experience can also create an opportunity for better guest management. For example, Disney observes queues on many of their rides to give worried kids a space to relax. For smaller attractions, physical queues can be useful for judging how busy different rides are likely to be.

So to queue or not to queue? We say, why not both. In an ideal world, every attraction will have both virtual and physical queues. While virtual queuing can ensure that no one has to stand in line for hours, not every ride will need one. Short physical queues may still work for smaller or less popular rides, which guests can even enjoy while they wait in line virtually for another ride.

3 . In the late afternoon, Brandon finished his farm work and went home. As they often did, his two sons, Louie, 6, and Everett, 3, _________ him.

As they headed for the house, the two boys ran ahead of him, who stopped to close the gate. Louie _________ at an old well. The _________ covering the well was brittle (脆弱的) over time. When Louie stepped on it, it was _________ and the boy fell in the well. Brandon quickly _________ what had happened.

He ran to the well and heard Louie _________ the water and screaming. Without _________ , he jumped in. As he _________ the well, he grabbed a thin pipe, which slowed his _________ and kept him from hurting his son.

Brandon hit the __________ water at the bottom of the well. He grabbed Louie, who was __________. Knowing they could not __________ in the freezing water too long, Brandon carried his son onto his chest as he __________ his own legs and back against the narrow walls for __________. Then he asked Everett to go back out to the road and get help.

About 15 minutes later, Christi and Mark, nearby farmer, noticed Everett stood __________ by the side of the road, waving. They asked if he was OK. He told them the __________ accident. The couple put Everett into their car and drove onto the farm, and the boy __________ to the well. Mark called the police while Christi called another __________, Dan, who sped to Brandon’s farm with his son and a __________ rope.

With the neighbors’ help, Brandon and Louie were rescued __________ at last.

7 . A century ago, the immigrants from across the Atlantic included settlers and travelers. Along with the many folks looking to make a permanent home in the United States came those who had no intention to stay, and 7 million people arrived while about 2 million departed. About a quarter of all Italian immigrants, for example, eventually returned to Italy for good. They even had an affectionate nickname, “uccelli di passaggio”, birds of passage.

Today, we place more restrictions on immigrants. We divide newcomers into two categories: legal or illegal, good or bad. We acknowledge them as Americans in the making, or identify them as aliens to be kicked out. That framework has contributed a great deal to our broken immigration system and the long political paralysis over how to fix it. We don’t need more categories, but we need to change the way we think about categories. We need to look beyond strict definitions of legal and illegal. To start, we can recognize the new birds of passage, those living and thriving in the gray areas. We might then begin to solve our immigration challenges.

Crop pickers, violinists, construction workers, entrepreneurs, engineers, home health-care aides and physicists are among today’s birds of passage. They are energetic participants in a global economy driven by the flow of work, money and ideas. They prefer to come and go as opportunity calls them. They can manage to have a job in one place and a family in another.

With or without permission, they straddle (跨越) laws, jurisdictions and identities with ease. We need them to imagine the United States as a place where they can be productive for a while without committing themselves to staying forever. We need them to feel that home can be both here and there and that they can belong to two nations honorably.

Accommodating this new world of people in motion will require new attitudes on both sides of the immigration battle. Looking beyond the culture war logic of right or wrong means opening up the middle ground and understanding that managing immigration today requires multiple paths and multiple outcomes, including some that are not easy to accomplish legally in the existing system.

8 . The chatbot ChatGPT, developed by American company OpenAI, has taken the world by storm in the past few months. This new research, however, has not been welcomed in education as expected. Faced with the threat of ChatGPT, the education community in many countries began to take measures.

New York City’s Department of Education announced a ban on the wildly popular chatbot ChatGPT, which some have warned could inspire more students to cheat, from its schools’ devices and networks.

The education department blocked access to the program, citing “negative impacts on student learning, and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content,” a spokesperson said. The move from the nation’s largest school system could have ripple effects as districts and schools across the country grapple with how to respond to the arrival of the dynamic new technology.

In addition, Sciences Po in Europe, a number of Canadian universities, and several Australian states are developing policies on student use of ChatCPT.

Vice president at UBC Vancouver, Simon Bates, said that all AI tools come with both potential benefits and real challenges, adding that the university is in the process of developing a newsletter (简报) and FAQ (frequently asked questions) as part of its educative approach to academic integrity (诚信).

In order to find out what the public thinks about using ChatGPT in schools, online course provider Study. com surveyed more than 100 educators and more than 1,000 students over the age of 18. The results showed that 72% of college professors who are aware of ChatGPT, are concerned about its impact on cheating. Over a third (34%) of all educators believe that ChatGPT should be banned in schools and universities. 66% support students having access to it.

Surprisingly, 72% of college students believe that ChatGPT should be banned from their college’s network.