In the winter of 2021, the lights went out

[Silverhand]

I figured I'd open a new thread. Please review the first part of my story.

In the winter of 2021, the lights went out for 35 million Brazilians across the northeast. Panic spread throughout Alagoas, injuring hundreds. Twenty people died in the dark. What was to blame? A small vulnerability in the transmission control room. Mark Jackson, a disgruntled employee, unleashed a virus into the mainframe and disappeared without leaving a digital trace. Three hours later, the system overloaded, and the grid shut down. Ten years on, modern systems have advanced and become significantly more robust. Twenty-thirty marked the installation of Brazil's first advanced AI (AAI). AAI is a highly intricate and smart computer software that manages entire cities, providing centralized control over subway lines, traffic lights, surveillance cameras, and electricity grids. An AI now controls a major city, but who adjusts and tweaks the underlying system? The answer is private companies that harvest data and information from the AAI. They have unrestricted access to personal data, which is the key commodity and a means to manipulating the masses. Every citizen is no longer an individual, but a data cluster bound to a vast global network.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It's fine.

 

[tedmc]

Can panic injure people?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Can panic injure people?

I wondered about that, too.

 

[Silverhand]

Thank you for reading my passage. I'm surprised that there weren't grammatical mistakes. I was expecting a few tbh.
As for panic injuring people, I see it cannot injure people per se, but I thought it was implied that panic led to chaos, which ultimately left wounded behind. Would this alternative make more sense?
"Panic spread throughout Alagoas, causing mayhem in the city that injured hundreds."

 

[emsr2d2]

You'll need to reword that last line. As it stands, it's saying that it's the city that injured hundreds.

 

[Silverhand]

Imo, it would mean that if I'd said "which caused," not "causing." This is purely a grammatical ambiguity to me because the reader wouldn't assume Alagoas itself caused mayhem in Alagoas if exactly three words before it I said "panic spread throughout."
In any case, do you think that it would be clearer if I removed "in the city."?

 

[tedmc]

Panic spread throughout (seized) Alagoas (no comma) causing mayhem in the city [STRIKE]that injured [/STRIKE] injuring hundreds.

I don't think panic, like a virus, is contagious and can spread. How about seized/overcame?
I think replacing that injured with injuring would clear the ambiguity.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Note that outside of the text and tweet worlds, tbh and imo are not words. We like words here. Thanks!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

You'll need to reword that last line. As it stands, it's saying that it's the city that injured hundreds.

Right. Try:

"Panic spread throughout Alagoas, causing mayhem in the city and injuring hundreds."

 

[Silverhand]

I thought those two abbreviations were ubiquitous regardless of the setting. Anyone understands what they mean. I think it's fine to use them, provided that they don't impede understanding.

 

[5jj]

They are not that common outside the world of informal internet/texting communication.

Unless we are discussing that sort of informal communication, we ask members to use standard English in this forum.

 

[probus]

Silverhand: if you wish to express gratitude, please use the Thank button. There is no need to make a posting for that.