[
  {
    "notice": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "notice1": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "notice2": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "title": "这里填标题，必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填",
    "titleTranslate": "这里填标题翻译",
    "text": "这里填原文，一句一个换行符，一段两个换行符，必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填",
    "textTranslate": "这里填原文翻译，一句一个换行符，一段两个换行符",
    "audioSrc": "这里填音频的url/在线地址"
  },
  {
    "title": "How are you today?",
    "titleTranslate": "今天好吗？",
    "text": "STEVEN:Hello, HELEN.\n\nHELEN:Hi, Steven.\n\nSTEVEN:How are you today?\n\nHELEN:I'm very well, thank you. And you?\n\nSTEVEN:I'm fine, thanks.\n\nSTEVEN:How is Tony?\n\nHELEN:He's fine, thanks. How's Emma?\n\nSTEVEN:She's very well, too, Helen.\n\nSTEVEN:Goodbye, Helen.Nice to see you.\n\nHELEN:Nice to see you, too, Steven. Goodbye.",
    "textTranslate": "史蒂文：你好，海伦 \n\n海 伦：你好，史蒂文 \n\n史蒂文：你今天好吗？ \n\n海 伦：很好，谢谢你。你好吗？ \n\n史蒂文：很好，谢谢。 \n\n史蒂文：托尼好吗？ \n\n海 伦：他很好，谢谢。埃玛好吗？ \n\n史蒂文：她也很好，海伦。 \n\n史蒂文：再见，海伦。见到你真高兴。 \n\n海 伦：我见到你也很高兴，史蒂文。再见。",
    "audioSrc": "/sound/article/nce1/009&010－How Are You Today.mp3"
  },
  {
    "title": "17A Discussing a Risk Before Acting",
    "titleTranslate": "第17课A｜讨论可能性与风险",
    "text": "Before changing a system, I ask what could be affected and which assumptions need to be confirmed before the action begins.\nA change that looks small in the interface may affect private information, access permissions, or a service used by several different people.\nI want to understand the actual scope of that effect rather than treat every unfamiliar operation as either completely safe or automatically dangerous.\nThe first step is to identify the resource, the people who can access it, and the behavior that the change would introduce.\nIf an application needs a credential, we should explain what that credential allows and where it will be stored during normal use.\nWe should also distinguish a temporary connection from persistent access that remains available after the immediate task has ended.\nThese details support a specific decision instead of a vague instruction to make everything secure without describing what secure means here.\nI use words such as may, might, and could when discussing uncertain outcomes, and I explain which observation would make the judgment stronger.\nIf the consequence is difficult to reverse, it is especially important to understand the intended result and the recovery options before proceeding.\nA useful risk discussion gives people enough concrete information to choose an appropriate action and recognize the conditions that would change that choice.",
    "textTranslate": "改系统前，我问可能影响什么，以及行动前需确认哪些假设。\n界面看似小改，可能影响私人信息、访问权限或多人服务。\n我希望了解实际影响范围，不把陌生操作视作绝对安全或必然危险。\n第一步确认资源、可访问者及改动将带来的行为。\n应用需凭据时，应说明凭据权限及正常使用存储位置。\n也要区分临时连接与任务结束后仍可用的持久访问。\n这些细节支持具体决定，而不是含糊要求一切安全却不解释含义。\n讨论不确定后果时用may、might、could，并说明什么观察能加强判断。\n后果难以逆转时，推进前尤其要理解预期结果与恢复选择。\n有用风险讨论提供足够具体信息，帮助选动作并识别改变决定的条件。"
  },
  {
    "title": "17B Thinking Through an Alternative",
    "titleTranslate": "第17课B｜讨论可能性与风险",
    "text": "An alternative plan becomes useful when it changes a relevant constraint, rather than simply move the same uncertainty into a different environment.\nSuppose that a workflow depends on a remote service, and that service is sometimes unavailable during the hours when we need it.\nWe might keep a local copy of suitable public data, reduce the number of requests, or design a clear way to resume later.\nEach option has a cost, and the choice depends on whether freshness, availability, privacy, or simplicity matters most for the current task.\nIf the data were available locally, we could continue reading during an outage, but we would still need a plan for updates.\nThis hypothetical statement helps us explore a possibility without claiming that the local copy already exists or is automatically the best solution.\nWe can then ask what would happen if the connection failed halfway through a task and whether a partial result could be recovered.\nA practical alternative should explain both the ordinary workflow and the condition under which a different path becomes necessary or useful.\nWhen we compare these possibilities, we are choosing how to handle uncertainty rather than promising that no failure will ever occur.\nThe final plan should state its assumptions clearly so that the team knows when to keep following it and when to reconsider the approach.",
    "textTranslate": "备选计划应改变相关限制，而不是把同一不确定性搬到另一环境。\n假设流程依赖远端服务，而它有时在需要时段不可用。\n我们可以保留合适公开数据的本地副本、减少请求或设计稍后恢复方式。\n每个选项有成本，选择取决于新鲜度、可用性、隐私、简洁性哪个最重要。\n数据若本地可用，故障时可继续阅读，但仍需更新计划。\n这种假设帮助探索可能性，不声称本地副本已存在或必为最佳。\n再问任务中途断线会怎样，部分结果能否恢复。\n可行备选应说明正常流程及何种条件下替代路径必要或有用。\n比较这些可能性是在选择处理不确定性的方式，而非保证永不失败。\n最终计划应写清假设，让团队知道何时继续、何时重新考虑。"
  },
  {
    "title": "17C Working Conversation",
    "titleTranslate": "第17课C｜讨论可能性与风险",
    "text": "Me: If we give this service access to the account, what actions will it be allowed to perform after the current session has ended?\nDeveloper: That depends on the permission scope and credential lifetime; I will explain both before proposing where the application should store the credential.\nMe: Please distinguish the access required for reading from the access needed for publishing, because those actions have different consequences for the account.\nDeveloper: We can request only the scope needed for the current workflow and document which additional action would require a separate permission later.\nMe: What would happen if the connection failed while a scheduled action was running, and how would we avoid repeating the same action accidentally?\nDeveloper: We would need to track the actual result and resume from a known state, rather than assume that every missing response means failure.\nMe: If a simpler approach reduces that uncertainty, please compare it with this design and explain the limitations of both options clearly.\nDeveloper: I will describe the assumptions, the possible consequences, and the evidence we need before choosing the approach that fits this particular workflow.",
    "textTranslate": "我：授予服务账号访问后，本次会话结束还能做哪些动作？\n开发者：取决于权限范围和凭据时效，建议存储位置前会解释二者。\n我：请区分读取与发布权限，因为对账号后果不同。\n开发者：可以只申请当前流程所需范围，并记录以后什么动作需额外权限。\n我：计划动作运行中断线会怎样，如何避免意外重复？\n开发者：需跟踪实际结果并从已知状态恢复，不能把没响应都当失败。\n我：若更简单方式能减少不确定性，请与此设计比较并解释二者限制。\n开发者：会描述假设、可能后果及所需证据，再选符合该流程的方式。"
  },
  {
    "title": "17D Sentence Review",
    "titleTranslate": "第17课D｜讨论可能性与风险",
    "text": "Before changing a system, I ask what could be affected and which assumptions need to be confirmed before the action begins.\nI want to understand the actual scope of that effect rather than treat every unfamiliar operation as either completely safe or automatically dangerous.\nIf an application needs a credential, we should explain what that credential allows and where it will be stored during normal use.\nI use words such as may, might, and could when discussing uncertain outcomes, and I explain which observation would make the judgment stronger.\nAn alternative plan becomes useful when it changes a relevant constraint, rather than simply move the same uncertainty into a different environment.\nWe might keep a local copy of suitable public data, reduce the number of requests, or design a clear way to resume later.\nThis hypothetical statement helps us explore a possibility without claiming that the local copy already exists or is automatically the best solution.\nWhen we compare these possibilities, we are choosing how to handle uncertainty rather than promising that no failure will ever occur.\nIf we give this service access to the account, what actions will it be allowed to perform after the current session has ended?\nPlease distinguish the access required for reading from the access needed for publishing, because those actions have different consequences for the account.\nWhat would happen if the connection failed while a scheduled action was running, and how would we avoid repeating the same action accidentally?\nIf a simpler approach reduces that uncertainty, please compare it with this design and explain the limitations of both options clearly.",
    "textTranslate": "改系统前，我问可能影响什么，以及行动前需确认哪些假设。\n我希望了解实际影响范围，不把陌生操作视作绝对安全或必然危险。\n应用需凭据时，应说明凭据权限及正常使用存储位置。\n讨论不确定后果时用may、might、could，并说明什么观察能加强判断。\n备选计划应改变相关限制，而不是把同一不确定性搬到另一环境。\n我们可以保留合适公开数据的本地副本、减少请求或设计稍后恢复方式。\n这种假设帮助探索可能性，不声称本地副本已存在或必为最佳。\n比较这些可能性是在选择处理不确定性的方式，而非保证永不失败。\n我：授予服务账号访问后，本次会话结束还能做哪些动作？\n我：请区分读取与发布权限，因为对账号后果不同。\n我：计划动作运行中断线会怎样，如何避免意外重复？\n我：若更简单方式能减少不确定性，请与此设计比较并解释二者限制。"
  },
  {
    "title": "17E Vocabulary in Context",
    "titleTranslate": "第17课E｜讨论可能性与风险",
    "text": "The policy explains how to handle spam and protect trust without treating every unfamiliar message as harmful.\nCybersecurity includes understanding the access a token grants, the information it exposes, and the effect of a revoked credential.\nThe account was suspended after suspicious activity, but the actual reason should be checked before making a claim about abuse.\nAn appeal asks for a review of the decision, and repeated appeals should not invent facts that the evidence does not support.\nThe service can encrypt sensitive information, but encryption alone does not establish that the entire system is secure.\nA security policy should explain how the system prevents leaking private information and handles a confirmed violation.\nThe permission was revoked, so the application should explain why a previously available action is now prohibited or disabled.\nUnknown input should remain untrusted until its role is understood, rather than being executed because it resembles a familiar command.\nA non-null result is not proof of safety, and a valid-looking response may still contain fake or unsupported information.\nA protector can provide a shield against some threats, but no single component can guarantee the absence of harmful behavior.\nThe system must not help bots cheat or bypass a boundary that the authorized user has not agreed to change.\nA clear strategy sets quotas for repeated actions and explains why those limits exist.\nThe concern is still unassessed, so we should not describe it as either confirmed harm or a fully resolved issue.\nThe environmental impact and the information risk are different concerns, although both may matter when choosing a service.",
    "textTranslate": "政策解释如何处理垃圾信息并保护信任，不把所有陌生消息视为有害。\n网络安全包括理解令牌权限、暴露信息和凭据撤销影响。\n账号因可疑活动暂停，但指控滥用前应查真实原因。\n申诉请求复核，反复申诉也不得编造无证事实。\n服务可加密敏感信息，但加密不证明全系统安全。\n安全政策应说明如何防泄露及处理已确认违规。\n权限被撤销，应用应解释先前可用动作为何现已禁止或禁用。\n未知输入应先视为不可信，不能像熟悉命令就执行。\n非空结果不证明安全，看似有效响应仍可含伪造或无据内容。\n保护器可防部分威胁，但单组件不能保证无有害行为。\n系统不应助机器人作弊或绕过授权用户未同意更改的边界。\n清晰策略为重复操作设配额，并解释存在理由。\n担忧尚未评估，不能说已证实有害或彻底解决。\n环境影响与信息风险不同，选服务时两者都可能重要。"
  }
]