𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕥 𝕒 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕛𝕦𝕟𝕔𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕖, 𝕗𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕟𝕖𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕠 𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕒 𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕣. 𝔻𝕦𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕝𝕒𝕤𝕥 𝕡𝕝𝕖𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕤𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒𝕣𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕚𝕟 𝕊𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕤𝕓𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕘, 𝕌𝕣𝕤𝕦𝕝𝕒 𝕍𝕠𝕟 𝕕𝕖𝕣 𝕃𝕖𝕪𝕖𝕟 𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖 𝕞𝕦𝕤𝕥 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕞, 𝕔𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕣𝕖𝕗𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕤𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕒𝕤 ℂ𝕙𝕦𝕣𝕔𝕙𝕚𝕝𝕝, ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕞𝕓𝕖𝕣𝕝𝕒𝕚𝕟, 𝕂𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕣 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝔼𝕚𝕤𝕖𝕟𝕙𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣. ℍ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕝𝕚𝕜𝕖 𝕥𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕨𝕙𝕚𝕔𝕙 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕖𝕤𝕤 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕡𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕒𝕔𝕙𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕘. 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕝𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥𝕟𝕖𝕤𝕤 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕨𝕙𝕚𝕔𝕙 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕒 𝕚𝕤 𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕤 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕦𝕤 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕚𝕞𝕡𝕝𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤. 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖 𝕤𝕖𝕖𝕞𝕤 𝕥𝕠 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕠𝕗𝕗𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪 𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕕 𝕒 ‘𝕡𝕣𝕖-𝕨𝕒𝕣 𝕞𝕠𝕕𝕖’, 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕤𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕤𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕟𝕠 𝕝𝕠𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕣 𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕪 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕒𝕝𝕤𝕠 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪, 𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕠𝕡𝕤, 𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕜𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕝𝕖 𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕖𝕝𝕕𝕤 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕙𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕥 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕟𝕥.
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕔𝕠𝕤𝕥 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕 𝟠𝟘𝟘 𝕓𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕖𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕤, 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕒𝕝𝕝 𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕔𝕝𝕒𝕚𝕞 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕒𝕗𝕗𝕖𝕔𝕥 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕤. 𝔹𝕦𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕚𝕤 𝕙𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕥𝕠 𝕓𝕖𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕧𝕖, 𝕘𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖'𝕤 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕝𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕪 𝕚𝕟 𝕕𝕖𝕓𝕥. 𝕎𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕕𝕠𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕟𝕖𝕨 𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪 𝕞𝕖𝕒𝕟: 𝕞𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕒𝕩𝕖𝕤, 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕖𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕘, 𝕠𝕣 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕡𝕝𝕪 𝕞𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕓𝕥? 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕒𝕦𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕤𝕖𝕖𝕞 𝕥𝕠 𝕒𝕧𝕠𝕚𝕕 𝕖𝕩𝕡𝕝𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕚𝕥 𝕔𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕝𝕪. 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕗𝕗𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜, 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕖𝕤𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕥𝕠𝕠𝕜 𝕡𝕝𝕒𝕔𝕖, 𝕚𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕔𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕒𝕓𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝕨𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕚𝕥 𝕞𝕖𝕒𝕟𝕥 𝕥𝕠 𝕘𝕠 𝕥𝕠 𝕨𝕒𝕣, 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕤 𝕟𝕠𝕨 𝕖𝕦𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕞𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕤𝕦𝕘𝕒𝕣-𝕔𝕠𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕡𝕙𝕣𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕦𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕠 𝕕𝕚𝕤𝕘𝕦𝕚𝕤𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕪.
ℍ𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕪 𝕠𝕗𝕗𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕧𝕒𝕝𝕦𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕝𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕚𝕗 𝕨𝕖 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕠 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕟 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞. ℂ𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪'𝕤 𝕤𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜 𝕕𝕠𝕖𝕤 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕟𝕖𝕔𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕝𝕪 𝕞𝕖𝕒𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕒 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕒𝕣 𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕒𝕔𝕝𝕪𝕤𝕞 𝕨𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕓𝕖 𝕣𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕕, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕚𝕥 𝕕𝕠𝕖𝕤 𝕤𝕖𝕣𝕧𝕖 𝕒𝕤 𝕒 𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕘𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕥 𝕓𝕖𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕔𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕨𝕒𝕪 𝕓𝕪 𝕗𝕒𝕓𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕤. 𝔽𝕠𝕦𝕣 𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕙𝕤 𝕓𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕦𝕥𝕓𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕜 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔽𝕚𝕣𝕤𝕥 𝕎𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕎𝕒𝕣, 𝕟𝕠 𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕚𝕞𝕒𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕒 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕗𝕝𝕚𝕔𝕥 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔹𝕒𝕝𝕜𝕒𝕟𝕤 𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕝𝕕 𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕘𝕖𝕣 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕝𝕝-𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝕨𝕒𝕣. 𝕋𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪, 𝕒𝕝𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕨𝕖 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕒𝕞𝕖 𝕔𝕚𝕣𝕔𝕦𝕞𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤, 𝕨𝕖 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕝𝕕 𝕓𝕖 𝕒𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕝𝕕 𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕖 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕒𝕣 𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕜𝕤.
𝔹𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕖𝕩𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒 𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕤𝕥 𝕖𝕣𝕒 𝕠𝕗 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕕𝕣𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕟 𝕓𝕪 𝕥𝕖𝕔𝕙𝕟𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕒𝕕𝕧𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕤𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕒𝕞𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕡, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕥𝕖𝕝𝕖𝕘𝕣𝕒𝕡𝕙 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕠𝕗 𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕘𝕚𝕔 𝕔𝕒𝕟𝕒𝕝𝕤 𝕤𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕒𝕤 𝕊𝕦𝕖𝕫 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕒𝕟𝕒𝕞𝕒. 𝕀𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕘𝕣𝕖𝕨 𝕣𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕕𝕝𝕪, 𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪 𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕦𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕤. ℍ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣, 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕘𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕒𝕝𝕤𝕠 𝕗𝕦𝕖𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕢𝕦𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤. 𝕃𝕒𝕘𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕤 𝕗𝕦𝕖𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕥 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕥𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕤𝕥 𝕞𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕦𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕔𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕘𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕥 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. 𝔹𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔾𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥 𝕎𝕒𝕣, 𝕤𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕙𝕒𝕕 𝕣𝕒𝕚𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕗𝕗𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕞𝕞𝕚𝕘𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. 𝕎𝕙𝕚𝕝𝕖 𝕒𝕝𝕝 𝕤𝕖𝕖𝕞𝕖𝕕 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕤, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕗𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕖𝕩𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕗𝕥𝕖𝕣 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕦𝕥𝕓𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕜 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕣. 𝕀𝕟 𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕝, 𝕥𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪 𝕨𝕖 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕝𝕤𝕠 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕕𝕧𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕕 𝕡𝕙𝕒𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕣 𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕦𝕣𝕖, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕣𝕖𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕖𝕡𝕚𝕤𝕠𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕤𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝟚𝟘𝟘𝟠 𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕚𝕤, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝟚𝟘𝟚𝟘 𝕡𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕣 𝕚𝕟 𝕌𝕜𝕣𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕖 𝕙𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕝𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕤𝕪𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕧𝕦𝕝𝕟𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤.
𝕀𝕟 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕝𝕝𝕒𝕡𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕕𝕦𝕖 𝕥𝕠 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕤𝕣𝕦𝕡𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕡𝕒𝕪𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕝𝕠𝕤𝕦𝕣𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕔𝕜 𝕖𝕩𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕒 𝕤𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕚𝕤. 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕤 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕣𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕠 𝕞𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕖𝕪 𝕡𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕦𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕣 𝕖𝕗𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕥, 𝕤𝕦𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕘𝕠𝕝𝕕 𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕣𝕕 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕔𝕒𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. 𝔾𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪 𝕤𝕦𝕗𝕗𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕕 𝕕𝕖𝕧𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕙𝕪𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟡𝟚𝟛, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕡𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕕𝕠𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕪 𝕥𝕨𝕠 𝕕𝕒𝕪𝕤. 𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕣𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕒𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕒𝕟𝕚𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕥 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕤𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕤𝕥 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕕𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕤𝕦𝕓𝕤𝕖𝕢𝕦𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕤. 𝕋𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪, 𝕒𝕝𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕞𝕖𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕚𝕤𝕞𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕔𝕠𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝕡𝕝𝕒𝕔𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕓𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕔𝕜𝕤, 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕔𝕙 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕤𝕖𝕝𝕗-𝕤𝕦𝕗𝕗𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕪 𝕚𝕟 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕤𝕦𝕘𝕘𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕤 𝕒 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕒𝕣 𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕣𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕒𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕜𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕘𝕗𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕘𝕖𝕠𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕪.
ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕡𝕣𝕖-𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜 𝕖𝕣𝕒 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕞𝕒𝕣𝕜𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕒 𝕤𝕪𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕞 𝕠𝕗 𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕚𝕕 𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕞𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕥 𝕣𝕚𝕧𝕒𝕝𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕤. 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕠 𝕥𝕨𝕠 𝕒𝕟𝕥𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔 𝕓𝕝𝕠𝕔𝕤: 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕋𝕣𝕚𝕡𝕝𝕖 𝔸𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 (𝔾𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪, 𝔸𝕦𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕒-ℍ𝕦𝕟𝕘𝕒𝕣𝕪, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕀𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕪) 𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕦𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕋𝕣𝕚𝕡𝕝𝕖 𝔼𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕖 (𝔽𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖, ℝ𝕦𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕒, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕂𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕕𝕠𝕞). 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕗𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕔𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕚𝕣 𝕞𝕖𝕞𝕓𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕥𝕠 𝕤𝕦𝕡𝕡𝕠𝕣𝕥 𝕖𝕒𝕔𝕙 𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕠𝕗 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕗𝕝𝕚𝕔𝕥, 𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕥𝕞𝕠𝕤𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕖𝕕 𝕔𝕒𝕞𝕡 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕪 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕨𝕒𝕣. 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔾𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝔼𝕞𝕡𝕚𝕣𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟠𝟟𝟙 𝕦𝕡𝕤𝕖𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕓𝕒𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣, 𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕗𝕖𝕒𝕣 𝕒𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕘 𝔽𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℝ𝕦𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕒, 𝕨𝕙𝕚𝕔𝕙 𝕤𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕚𝕣 𝕠𝕨𝕟 𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟠𝟡𝟜. 𝔹𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕚𝕟, 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝔾𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪'𝕤 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕦𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕖, 𝕒𝕓𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕠𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕥𝕤 𝕚𝕤𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕥𝕠 𝕞𝕠𝕧𝕖 𝕔𝕝𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕣 𝕥𝕠 𝕚𝕥𝕤 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕣𝕚𝕧𝕒𝕝𝕤. 𝔹𝕖𝕣𝕝𝕚𝕟 𝕗𝕖𝕝𝕥 𝕤𝕦𝕣𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕝𝕖 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕤, 𝕗𝕦𝕖𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒 𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕪.
𝕋𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪, 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕥-ℂ𝕠𝕝𝕕 𝕎𝕒𝕣 𝕖𝕣𝕒, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕖𝕣 𝕙𝕒𝕤 𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕗𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕌𝕊-𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕦𝕟𝕚𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕥𝕠 𝕒 𝕘𝕣𝕠𝕨𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕞𝕦𝕝𝕥𝕚𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕪. ℂ𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕒 𝕚𝕤 𝕖𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕤 𝕒𝕟 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣, 𝕨𝕙𝕚𝕝𝕖 ℝ𝕦𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕒 𝕤𝕖𝕖𝕜𝕤 𝕥𝕠 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕚𝕥𝕤 𝕤𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕝𝕦𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖, 𝕒𝕤 𝕚𝕥 𝕙𝕒𝕤 𝕕𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝕌𝕜𝕣𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕖. 𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕙𝕒𝕤 𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕠 𝕒 𝕣𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕨𝕒𝕝 𝕠𝕗 𝕎𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕟 𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 ℕ𝔸𝕋𝕆 𝕘𝕣𝕠𝕨𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕣 𝕒𝕗𝕥𝕖𝕣 𝕪𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕣𝕖𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕣𝕣𝕖𝕝𝕖𝕧𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖. 𝕀𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔸𝕤𝕚𝕒-ℙ𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕗𝕚𝕔, 𝕟𝕖𝕨 𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕟𝕖𝕥𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕜𝕤 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕖𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕘𝕖𝕕, 𝕤𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔸𝕌𝕂𝕌𝕊 𝕡𝕒𝕔𝕥 𝕓𝕖𝕥𝕨𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕌𝕊, 𝕁𝕒𝕡𝕒𝕟, 𝕀𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕒 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝔸𝕦𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕒, 𝕕𝕖𝕤𝕚𝕘𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕠 𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕓𝕒𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 ℂ𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕒. ℍ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣, 𝕥𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪'𝕤 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕚𝕤 𝕞𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕝𝕖𝕩 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕟 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕞𝕒𝕛𝕠𝕣 𝕡𝕝𝕒𝕪𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕤𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕒𝕤 𝕀𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕒 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕋𝕦𝕣𝕜𝕖𝕪 𝕒𝕕𝕠𝕡𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕗𝕝𝕖𝕩𝕚𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤, 𝕤𝕖𝕖𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕓𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕗𝕚𝕥𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕓𝕠𝕥𝕙 𝕤𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕤. 𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕞𝕦𝕝𝕥𝕚𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕣 𝕘𝕖𝕠𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕕𝕪𝕟𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕦𝕟𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕥𝕒𝕓𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕠𝕗 𝕣𝕖𝕘𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕖𝕤.
𝕀𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕤𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖, 𝕓𝕠𝕥𝕙 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪, 𝕡𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝕠𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 𝕓𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕤𝕙𝕒𝕡𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕔𝕦𝕝𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕖𝕔𝕙𝕟𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕗𝕒𝕔𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕤. 𝔹𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔽𝕚𝕣𝕤𝕥 𝕎𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕎𝕒𝕣, 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖𝕒𝕟 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕨𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕗𝕠𝕦𝕟𝕕 𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕤 𝕕𝕦𝕖 𝕥𝕠 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕊𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕕 𝕀𝕟𝕕𝕦𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕝 ℝ𝕖𝕧𝕠𝕝𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕦𝕣𝕓𝕒𝕟, 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕔𝕝𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕥 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕗𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕤𝕥 𝕞𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤. ℙ𝕒𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕠𝕩𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪, 𝕒𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕦𝕥𝕓𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕜 𝕠𝕗 𝕨𝕒𝕣 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜, 𝕞𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕖 𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕣𝕘𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕘𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕟 𝕒 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕒𝕘𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕒-𝕕𝕣𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕟 𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕥𝕚𝕔 𝕗𝕖𝕣𝕧𝕠𝕦𝕣. 𝔾𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕤𝕪𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪 𝕦𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕔𝕒𝕞𝕡𝕒𝕚𝕘𝕟𝕤 𝕥𝕠 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕚𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕖 𝕡𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝕠𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕤𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕗𝕚𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕦𝕤 𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕞𝕪 𝕒𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕦𝕟𝕗𝕒𝕧𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕟𝕖𝕨𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕟𝕥. 𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕚𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕒𝕘𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕠 𝕞𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕒𝕚𝕟 𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝 𝕦𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕒 𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕣 𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕘𝕖𝕕 𝕠𝕟, 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕕𝕚𝕤𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕘𝕣𝕖𝕨, 𝕔𝕦𝕝𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕚𝕟 𝕣𝕖𝕧𝕠𝕝𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕥𝕤.
𝕋𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪, 𝕨𝕖 𝕝𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕘𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝 𝕒𝕘𝕖, 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕟𝕪𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕤𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕 𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕚𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕥𝕝𝕪 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕒 𝕤𝕞𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕡𝕙𝕠𝕟𝕖. 𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕠𝕨𝕤 𝕚𝕟𝕛𝕦𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕣 𝕚𝕞𝕡𝕠𝕣𝕥𝕒𝕟𝕥 𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕥𝕠 𝕘𝕠 𝕧𝕚𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕢𝕦𝕚𝕔𝕜𝕝𝕪, 𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝 𝕡𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝕠𝕦𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝕒 𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕥𝕖𝕣 𝕠𝕗 𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕤 𝕠𝕣 𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕦𝕥𝕖𝕤. ℍ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣, 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕕𝕖𝕞𝕠𝕔𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕒𝕝𝕤𝕠 𝕓𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕤 𝕟𝕖𝕨 𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕤, 𝕤𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕒𝕤 𝕒𝕟 𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕓𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕚𝕟𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕒 𝕝𝕒𝕔𝕜 𝕠𝕗 𝕢𝕦𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕝. 𝕊𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕟𝕖𝕥𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕜𝕤 𝕗𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖 𝕓𝕠𝕥𝕙 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕦𝕟𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕚𝕟𝕛𝕦𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕚𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕒𝕦𝕕𝕚𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕟 𝕒 𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕘𝕖 𝕤𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕖, 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕦𝕤 𝕚𝕟 𝕓𝕦𝕓𝕓𝕝𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕒𝕗𝕗𝕚𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕨𝕖 𝕙𝕖𝕒𝕣 𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕪 𝕝𝕚𝕜𝕖-𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕕 𝕠𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤. 𝕄𝕠𝕣𝕖𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣, 𝕕𝕚𝕘𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝 𝕔𝕦𝕝𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕖 𝕙𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕤𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕖𝕕 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕗𝕝𝕚𝕔𝕥𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕖𝕕𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕠 𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕣𝕥𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕥, 𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕧𝕚𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖. ℂ𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕓𝕠𝕥𝕙 𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕕𝕤, 𝕨𝕖 𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕕 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕚𝕡𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕡𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝕠𝕡𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕥𝕖𝕔𝕙𝕟𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕞𝕖𝕒𝕟𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕞𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕞𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕕𝕧𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕝𝕖𝕩 𝕥𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪.
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕗𝕒𝕔𝕥𝕠𝕣 𝕒𝕝𝕤𝕠 𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕤 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕣𝕪𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕝𝕤. 𝕀𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕦𝕡 𝕥𝕠 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜, 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖𝕒𝕟 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕤𝕚𝕘𝕟𝕚𝕗𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕟𝕥𝕝𝕪 𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕚𝕣 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕔𝕖𝕤. 𝔾𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪 𝕒𝕝𝕞𝕠𝕤𝕥 𝕕𝕠𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕥𝕤 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕓𝕦𝕚𝕝𝕥 𝕒 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕗𝕦𝕝 𝕟𝕒𝕧𝕒𝕝 𝕗𝕝𝕖𝕖𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕔𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕟𝕘𝕖𝕕 𝔹𝕣𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕤𝕙 𝕤𝕦𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕒𝕔𝕪. 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕌𝕂 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕕 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕞𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕓𝕒𝕥𝕥𝕝𝕖𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕡𝕤, 𝕞𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒 𝕟𝕒𝕧𝕒𝕝 𝕖𝕩𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕨𝕚𝕔𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕠𝕗 𝔾𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪. 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕤 𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕖 𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕥𝕞𝕠𝕤𝕡𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕦𝕟𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕔𝕖𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕟 𝕡𝕖𝕒𝕔𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖. 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖 𝕚𝕟 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕖𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕕𝕖𝕣 𝕜𝕖𝕘, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕞𝕖𝕟 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕕𝕖𝕥𝕒𝕚𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕨𝕒𝕣 𝕡𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕤 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕪 𝕥𝕠 𝕓𝕖 𝕖𝕩𝕖𝕔𝕦𝕥𝕖𝕕. ℙ𝕒𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕠𝕩𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪, 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕦𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕕𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕦𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕟𝕖𝕨 𝕨𝕖𝕒𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕤, 𝕖𝕩𝕡𝕖𝕔𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒 𝕤𝕙𝕠𝕣𝕥, 𝕞𝕠𝕓𝕚𝕝𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕣. 𝕀𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕒𝕕, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕤𝕥 𝕕𝕖𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕠 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕥𝕣𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕙 𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕗𝕒𝕣𝕖.
𝕋𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪, 𝕒𝕗𝕥𝕖𝕣 𝕕𝕖𝕔𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕣𝕖𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕕𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕘𝕒𝕚𝕟 𝕒 𝕥𝕣𝕖𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕠𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕕𝕤 𝕚𝕟𝕔𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕞𝕠𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕒𝕣𝕤𝕖𝕟𝕒𝕝𝕤. 𝕀𝕟 𝟚𝟘𝟚𝟛, 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕔𝕙𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕝𝕝-𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖 𝕙𝕚𝕘𝕙 𝕠𝕗 $𝟚.𝟜𝟜 𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕌𝕊, ℂ𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕒 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℝ𝕦𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕒. 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖'𝕤 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕡𝕝𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕕𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕠 𝕥𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕠𝕦𝕥𝕝𝕒𝕪, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕣 𝕚𝕟 𝕌𝕜𝕣𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕖 𝕖𝕧𝕠𝕜𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕤𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕎𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕞𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕞𝕠𝕓𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕦𝕤𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕣𝕪 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕔 𝕥𝕣𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕙𝕖𝕤. 𝔸𝕝𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕥𝕖𝕔𝕙𝕟𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕪 𝕦𝕤𝕖𝕕 𝕟𝕠𝕨 𝕚𝕤 𝕦𝕟𝕚𝕢𝕦𝕖 𝕥𝕠 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝟚𝟙𝕤𝕥 𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕪, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕕𝕣𝕠𝕟𝕖𝕤, 𝕔𝕪𝕓𝕖𝕣-𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕗𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕝-𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖 𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕖 𝕚𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕖, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕖𝕝𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕝𝕝 𝕖𝕧𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥. ℂ𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕒'𝕤 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕖𝕩𝕡𝕒𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕥𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕖𝕞𝕓𝕝𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝔾𝕖𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕟 𝕟𝕒𝕧𝕒𝕝 𝕓𝕦𝕚𝕝𝕕-𝕦𝕡 𝕓𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜, 𝕒𝕝𝕓𝕖𝕚𝕥 𝕠𝕟 𝕒 𝕞𝕦𝕔𝕙 𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕘𝕖𝕣 𝕤𝕔𝕒𝕝𝕖. 𝕋𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪'𝕤 𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕘𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕕𝕚𝕗𝕗𝕖𝕣 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕔𝕦𝕥𝕖𝕝𝕪 𝕒𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕠𝕡𝕖𝕟 𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕗𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕓𝕖𝕥𝕨𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕞 𝕨𝕠𝕦𝕝𝕕 𝕓𝕖 𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕙𝕚𝕔, 𝕖𝕤𝕡𝕖𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 𝕟𝕦𝕔𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕣 𝕨𝕖𝕒𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕒𝕥 𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕜𝕖.
𝔸𝕗𝕥𝕖𝕣 𝕎𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕎𝕒𝕣 𝕀, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕣𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕘𝕣𝕒𝕧𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕠𝕗 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣 𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕗𝕥𝕖𝕕: 𝔼𝕦𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕨𝕖𝕒𝕜𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕖𝕓𝕥𝕖𝕕, 𝕨𝕙𝕚𝕝𝕖 𝕒 𝕟𝕖𝕨 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣, 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕤, 𝕖𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕘𝕖𝕕. 𝕋𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪, 𝕨𝕖 𝕞𝕒𝕪 𝕓𝕖 𝕗𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕒𝕣 𝕤𝕙𝕚𝕗𝕥 𝕚𝕟 𝕙𝕖𝕘𝕖𝕞𝕠𝕟𝕪, 𝕨𝕚𝕥𝕙 ℂ𝕙𝕚𝕟𝕒 𝕡𝕠𝕤𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕚𝕥𝕤𝕖𝕝𝕗 𝕒𝕤 𝕒𝕟 𝕒𝕤𝕡𝕚𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕕𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕟𝕥 𝕤𝕦𝕡𝕖𝕣𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣 𝕓𝕪 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕞𝕚𝕕𝕕𝕝𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝟚𝟙𝕤𝕥 𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕪. 𝕀𝕥𝕤 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔, 𝕥𝕖𝕔𝕙𝕟𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕣𝕪 𝕘𝕣𝕠𝕨𝕥𝕙 𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕝𝕕 𝕣𝕖𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕖𝕣 𝕘𝕝𝕠𝕓𝕒𝕝 𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖 𝕤𝕪𝕤𝕥𝕖𝕞𝕤, 𝕖𝕩𝕡𝕝𝕒𝕚𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕦𝕣𝕣𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤. 𝕀𝕟 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕝𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕨𝕙𝕚𝕝𝕖 𝕥𝕠𝕕𝕒𝕪'𝕤 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕝𝕕 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕠𝕗 𝟙𝟡𝟙𝟜 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝, 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕤𝕙𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕨𝕠𝕣𝕣𝕪𝕚𝕟𝕘𝕝𝕪 𝕤𝕚𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕒𝕣 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤: 𝕘𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣 𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤, 𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥, 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕤, 𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞𝕤, 𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕖𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕤𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕖𝕤 𝕤𝕦𝕤𝕔𝕖𝕡𝕥𝕚𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕥𝕠 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕒𝕘𝕒𝕟𝕕𝕒 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. 𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕓𝕚𝕟𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕝𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕝 𝕒 𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕪 𝕒𝕘𝕠, 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕕𝕖𝕣𝕤 𝕥𝕠 𝕔𝕒𝕥𝕒𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕙𝕖. 𝕆𝕟𝕝𝕪 𝕝𝕖𝕒𝕣𝕟𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕠𝕣𝕪 𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕦𝕤 𝕗𝕣𝕠𝕞 𝕣𝕖𝕡𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕗𝕒𝕥𝕒𝕝 𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕒𝕜𝕖𝕤.
CREDITS:
Dedicɑted to ɑll those poets who contɾibute, dɑγ bγ dɑγ, to mɑke ouɾ plɑnet ɑ betteɾ woɾld.
Your historical and current event writing is even better than your fiction -- clear and necessary.
We live in modern, digital times, but full of uncertainties. As I wrote in a previous publication: the silence of the gods in a world without certainties.