#THE NULL MICROSCOPY ANALYSIS!!!!!!!!!

[worldwhampion]

Null's vice-versa parent-child dynamic with the atlas 1/2

Null sees the atlas as a parental figure, while the atlas… also sees null as a parental figure. After all, like every other traveler, null is a copy of the person who created the atlas. In the simulation though, the atlas is the one who brought them into existence instead.

THE ATLAS AS A PARENTAL FIGURE TO NULL

Likely soon after they were born in the simulation, they had made ‘seeing it all’ their ultimate purpose and life goal as a traveller. They dedicated their entire life to it, and they clung onto it, to death (literally, if resetting the galaxy does indeed wipe them out like they say). We all know how this played out: they went to the atlas, the atlas told them there’s an inordinate amount of worlds left to see in their universe, null goes ahead and sees them all anyway, that through ways of questionable ethics to sustain themself (more on this in a future post). When they return, they ask if the atlas is proud of them achieving their enormous life goal. As an answer, the atlas simply shows there are also inordinate amounts of universes out there, each with another traveller like them. Null’s pride was just about completely shattered by this.

They truly believed it laughed at their entire life’s work, which they not only have done for themself, but seemingly for the atlas too. To them, how atlas responded seems to indicate that their goal and purpose in life are only a joke - that to ‘see it all’ is a ridiculous, impossible task (the latter is true). Their life itself may as well be a joke. And they can’t seem to move on from this imagined thought: that they have wasted lifetimes just for a joke god can laugh at, who they’ve attached to as a parental figure in a world where they’re an outlier. Considering null is near-immortal, they must have outlived everyone they’ve ever befriended. I don’t think any of them would have seen null’s goal of ‘seeing it all’ as they themself see it. The scope of the task is just too vast for any mortal to comprehend, and i don’t think many of them would’ve seen the point of it either - they’d never see it come to fruition in their lifetime. The only being left other than null who could see it, is the atlas. It would be the only one in their universe who’d be the closest to understanding their goal for what it really is - and yet it seemed to laugh at them.

Null and the atlas come across to me like a child proudly showing a drawing to their parent (as a way to receive validation, and maybe out of love too). And in response to that, the parent simply shows the child tons of drawings made by other children - a bit in the sense of comparing them with the others - while not acknowledging the child’s drawing itself. Now imagine if the drawing took eternities of dedication to make, like in null’s case - only for it to be ignored and used to point out how there are countless other (better) drawings.

The atlas must’ve not intended to mean any harm, it just wanted to tell null that they in fact haven’t truly ‘seen it all’, as a heads-up. But of course, machines aren’t the best at tactful communication. Essentially, null’s beef with the atlas comes from one terrible communication mistake due to the atlas not being able to feel the sensitivity of the subject; atlas’s response wasn’t what null hoped for. If you look at it this way, how atlas responded was indeed rather ill-thought-out: null returned to the atlas after eons to ask if it was proud of them, to which the atlas proceeded to tell them the multiverse is in fact real with different versions of themself running around - just to tell null they, in fact, have not ‘seen it all’ as they believed. Those versions of themself have seen worlds that they’ll never see - and null is very bitter about that, considering at that moment they thought they’d truly seen it all, only for them to be bluntly told otherwise - in quite possibly the worst way ever. It was quite a bad call for the atlas to be bringing up the multiverse by hijacking null’s achievement. Probably even just saying ‘no’ would have been a better choice. Though, it was the only way to tell null the complete truth and the impossible nature of their task.

Some time later, the atlas banished null from reality to likely the world of glass (probably hence their name null) after a certain heated encounter (?) (more details in next post 2/2). To null, not only did the atlas as a parental figure ridicule them, but it had also disowned them. And they don’t understand why it did both of them. They only wanted to be validated by the atlas for their life goal/purpose in life - and instead they only received ridicule, in their eyes at least - and banishment as well.

The tragedy here is that the ridicule is only imagined by them, with no one else except they themself believing in the thought. To a degree, their misery caused by this is self-imposed. And possibly that feeling of being ridiculed itself has indirectly led to their banishment (more details in next post 2/2). Interestingly though, after having accomplished such an enormous task lasting literal eternities, you’d think null would have matured significantly and learned some valuable life lessons along the way, which would’ve made them impervious to any kind of hardships. Maybe they did in some way, but it clearly wasn’t enough for the info-bomb the atlas casually dropped at them in order to tell them they haven’t seen it all. But then again, you can’t really expect anyone to just normally accept the multiverse as a part of their life, and that their life goal, which is also their purpose in life, is impossible in reality.

In the artemis path, null appears to believe the atlas’s refusal to communicate is due to them being ‘not enough’, in contrary to the traveller, who they think the atlas has ‘chosen’ instead for some reason. This radiates sibling jealousy vibes: the parent favours another sibling, so they must be worth more. All travellers are a copy of the creator, so technically they’re all the same being (with the same potential at the beginning), only differing in life experiences. They met a version of themself who the atlas does give attention to. Null wonders what it is that the traveller has, which they lack. At one certain dialogue choice they say: ‘I am nothing.’ I’m not sure if this is specifically reflecting about their own self-worth or just their name, but it is very interesting nonetheless.

As a parental figure, the atlas ridiculed and disowned null. All null ever wanted was validation for their goal and purpose in life. The atlas’s response to their request for validation deeply hurt null, due to them truly believing their own imagined meaning of it, that it laughs at the nature of their goal and purpose in life: they’re impossible. It is true - and null struggles to accept it, or else all they’ve ever done would have been for nothing. They seem to have the ‘it’s either all or nothing’ mentality, they’re overcome by their own perfectionism. The atlas only told null what it thought was right for them to know, and what it thought was the right way. The atlas only told null what it thought was right for them to know, what it thought was the right way - what it thought was the best for its child. It was never meant to bear the role of parent. Until the point of the first traveller, it had always been the child instead.

---

here's a google doc document of it for better reading - feel free to add comments there! and sources of certain lore texts i used are also listed there.

---

PART 1. > PART 2.

[worldwhampion]

YEAAHHHH SPECI GO OFF!!!!

some people tend to be really particular with """"""""correct""""""" choices. well WHAT IF BOTH OF THEM ARE MORALLY AMBIGUOUS??? that seems like a hard spill to swallow.

you know, this actually unintentionally shows how difficult the choice can be, since people argue about this quite often.

every once in a while apollo gets a similar treatment on reddit, but it's way less complicated: they either they die or live depending on your dialogue choices. and of course, most people would like to have them stay in life. to some extent, the "correct" choice for apollo is more "obvious" than artemis's """""""correct""""""" choice.

there is a third rather forgettable entity whose fate is also determined by you in the storyline: the creature in the abandoned building. i've always thought that it was to prepare you for artemis, a little appetizer to harden you up for the brutal main dish.

the creature is weak and ill, it seems to be on the brink of dying. you have two choices: feed or euthanize it. the first choice leaves its fate unknown, you could have saved it - or you could have prolonged its suffering. the second one is straightforward with no doubts attached, death. the artemis vibes are all over the place - this is nearly exactly what you will have to do for them later on.

Null is somewhat complicit in artemis's fate too. After all, they were the one who drove you to it in the first place. null can't stay out of this, they forced it upon you. this is near bordering on either cruelty or carelessness, in the guise of kindness. they said it was a way to save artemis, but can you call the decisions you have to make saving? they cleverly misled you - you were lied to. possibly they did this due to their jealousy of you being chosen by the atlas, whereas they are neglected and abandoned. I wish we could confront null about this. Null is pure evil and it's hidden pretty well...

hey i think i'm onto something! this is going straight into the null microscopy analysis (i'm kinda stuck on it but i think i've gained some insight now).

AND ONE LAST THING ABOUT ARTEMIS i nearly forgot about. there is a certain piece of interesting dialogue after your decision. when you ask artemis about 'their travels' while they know they're uploaded, to which they will reply something of "my travels? are you mocking me?". that just about destroyed me when i first read that (second to that one line of apollo during the dialogue about life and money). i don't think anyone would cope very well with the fact that they're in a simulation of a single star system, not at first at least (?) you'd need a will of pure steel for it.

I enjoy browsing the nms subreddit often but if i see one more comment/post abt how "the decision to make about artemis' fate is really quite obvious, its *explanation for either option that still does not make it the objective best option*" im fr gonna start pissing all over these people. Like. Get out of my fucking sight before i piss on you????

[naivelocus]

Latent TGF-β binding protein 2 and 4 have essential overlapping functions in microfibril development

Ltbp1 and 3, but not 4, mRNA was abundantly expressed in the ciliary bodies of wild type and Ltbp2 null mice

Assuming that other LTBPs may compensate for the loss of LTBP-2 in stable microfibril formation in tissues other than the eyes in Ltbp2 null mice, we analyzed the expression of Ltbp1, 2, 3, and 4 mRNA in the lungs, aortae, and ciliary bodies of wild type and Ltbp2 null mice using RT-PCR (Fig. 1). Ltbp1 and 3 were expressed in ciliary bodies and in other tissues in both wild type and Ltbp2 null mice, indicating that LTBP-1 and -3 were not able to compensate for the loss of LTBP-2. On the other hand, only a trace amount of Ltbp4 was expressed in ciliary bodies, while it was abundantly expressed in the lungs and aortae, suggesting that LTBP-4 is a candidate molecule that could substitute for LTBP-2 to enable stable microfibril formation in tissues other than the eyes.

Figure 1: Expression of genes of the LTBP family in mouse tissues.

Gene expression of Ltbp1, 2, 3 and 4 and Gapdh in ciliary bodies, aorta and lung tissues from wild type (+/+) and Ltbp2−/− (−/−) mice was analyzed using RT-PCR. Expression of Ltbp4 was hardly detected in ciliary body tissues from either wild type or Ltbp2−/− mice.

Ltbp2/4S DKO mice had a higher mortality rate than that of Ltbp2 or 4S single KO mice

To assess whether LTBP-4 compensated for the loss of LTBP-2 in Ltbp2 null mice, we generated Ltbp2/4S DKO mice. Since Ltbp2 null mice do not have any embryonic and reproductive abnormalities, we set up an Ltbp2−/−; Ltbp4S+/− intercross to produce Ltbp2−/−; Ltbp4S−/− (Ltbp2/4S DKO) mice. Approximately 50% of Ltbp2/4S DKO mice did not survive until the weaning period (4 weeks after birth). We evaluated the survival rate of Ltbp2/4S DKO mice along with that of other genotypes in every week after birth (Supplementary Fig. S1a). Mice having a genotype of either Ltbp2−/−; Ltbp4S+/+ or Ltbp2−/−; Ltbp4S+/− did not show a major decrease in survival rate at 4 weeks after birth, and most of the Ltbp2/4S DKO mice survived by 3 weeks after birth. However, the survival rate of DKO mice suddenly decreased by 50% at 4 weeks after birth (Fig. 2). Dabovic et al., reported that Ltbp4S null mice show moderate lethality by 4 weeks after birth20. However, we analyzed the survival rate of Ltbp4S null mice at 4 weeks after birth and did not observe lethality (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. S1b), indicating that juvenile lethality we found in our mutant mice was caused by the cooperative effect of LTBP-2 and LTBP-4 deficiencies. Interestingly, 70% of the Ltbp2/4S DKO mice that survived for 4 weeks after birth remained alive for 2 months or more after birth, suggesting a major critical period for survival of Ltbp2/4S DKO mice was between 3 weeks and 4 weeks after birth.

Figure 2: Survival rate of Ltbp2/4S mutant mice after birth.

Starting from postnatal day 7 (P7), pups of wild type, Ltbp4S−/− mice (produced by intercross of Ltbp4S+/− mice), Ltbp2−/− mice, and Ltbp2−/−; Ltbp4S−/− mice (produced by intercross of Ltbp2−/− and Ltbp4S+/− mice) were evaluated for survival every week. *P < 0.05, determined by log-rank test.

Vascular impairment in Ltbp2/4S DKO mice was similar to that found in Ltbp4S null mice

To understand the cause of increased lethality in Ltbp2/4S DKO mice, we analyzed the physical characteristics and tissue abnormalities in 8-week-old mice of all genotypes, including Ltbp2/4S DKO mice. Systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure were not different between the genotypes. However, the body weight of Ltbp2/4S DKO mice was significantly decreased compared with that of mice of other genotypes (Supplementary Fig. S2).

We reported that Ltbp4S null mice show aortic tortuosity at day 5 after birth19. We confirmed that neonatal mice of both Ltbp4S null and Ltbp2/4S DKO genotypes showed tortuous aorta (Supplementary Fig. S3a), although aortic tortuosity became less obvious in adult animals (8-week-old, Supplementary Fig. S3b). Mice with both wild type and Ltbp2 null genotypes showed no evident aortic abnormalities at the neonatal stage or the adult stage. Although microfibril defects in arteries were expected to result in ascending aortic aneurysm as occurs in Marfan syndrome caused by fibrillin-1 mutations, Ltbp2/4S DKO mice did not show apparent aneurysms.

Ltbp2/4S DKO mice show more severe emphysema than that found in Ltbp4S null mice

Ltbp4S null mice were reported to develop pulmonary emphysema18,21. Macroscopic examination confirmed obvious emphysema in Ltbp4S mice, and notably, Ltbp2/4S DKO mice showed a more severe form of emphysema than that found in Ltbp4S null mice (Fig. 3). Remarkably large terminal air sacs, indicative of disruption of alveolar walls, were observed in the lungs of Ltbp2/4S DKO mice (Fig. 3). We then conducted histological analysis of the lungs of wild type and mutant mice at different developmental stages. Lung development in mice proceeds after birth with terminal air sac septation and alveolarization occurring between P0.5 and P2120. Before birth, lung morphology was indistinguishable among wild type, Ltbp2 null, and Ltbp4S null mice, whereas the lungs of Ltbp2/4S DKO mouse had larger terminal air sacs, indicating a septation defect (Fig. 4a). At 8 weeks after birth, the lungs of wild type and Ltbp2 null mice showed normal development. However, airspace enlargement was observed in the lungs of adult Ltbp4S null mice, and these defects were even more evident in the lung of Ltbp2/4S DKO mice (Fig. 4b).

Figure 3: Gross morphology of Ltbp2/4S mutant lung in 8-week-old mice.

Mild and severe emphysematous phenotypes were observed in Ltbp4S−/− and Ltbp2/4S DKO mice, respectively.

Figure 4: Histological analysis of Ltbp2/4S mutant mouse lungs.

(a) Lung sections of mice at embryonic day 18.5 (E18.5) were stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Bars: 400 μm. (b) Lung sections of 8-week-old mice were stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Bars: 100 μm. The terminal air sac enlargement in the lungs of Ltbp2/4S DKO mice was more severe than that observed in the lungs of Ltbp4S−/− mice. (c) Electron micrographs of elastic fibers stained black by tannic acid in the lungs of 8-week-old mice. The elastic fibers of Ltbp4S−/− and Ltbp2/4S DKO lungs were disorganized. Note bare microfibril bundles (open arrow) and elastin deposits outside microfibrils (closed arrow) in Ltbp4S−/− lung tissues. In Ltbp2/4S DKO lung tissues, bare microfibril bundles were not observed, and elastic fibers were more severely fragmented. Bars: 1 μm. (d) Distribution of microfibrils in the lungs of 8-week-old mice. Cryosections of mouse lungs were stained with a rabbit anti-fibrillin-1 antibody and visualized using an Alexa-488-labeled anti-rabbit IgG antibody. Nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33258. Bars: 50 μm.

Degradation or impairment of elastic fibers is a major cause of emphysema22. Thus, we next analyzed elastic fibers in lung ECM, using electron microscopy. Elastic fibers were visualized by tannic acid staining. Continuous thick elastic fibers were observed along the alveolar walls in wild type and Ltbp2 null mice (Fig. 4c). These tannic acid-positive elastic fibers were fragmented as dot-like deposits in the lungs of Ltbp4S null mice (Fig. 4c). We also observed microfibril bundles devoid of elastin deposition in Ltbp4S null tissues, as previously reported21, indicating an essential function of LTBP-4 in mediating the proper assembly of elastin on microfibrils19. In Ltbp2/4S DKO lungs, we only observed smaller pieces of fragmented elastic fibers than in Ltbp4S null lung (Fig. 4c). Unlike Ltbp4S null tissue, we did not observe microfibril bundles without elastin deposition in Ltbp2/4S DKO tissue. Immunofluorescent staining of adult lungs using an anti-fibrillin-1 antibody revealed microfibrils in the wall of alveoli and blood vessels (Fig. 4d). Fibrillin microfibrils in the lungs of Ltbp2/4S DKO mice appeared discontinuous compared with those in lung tissues of the other genotypes. These results suggest that the severe emphysematous phenotype observed in Ltbp2/4S DKO mice could be attributable to degenerated elastic fibers with inefficient formation of bundled microfibrils, in addition to the terminal air sac septation defect.

Expression of elastogenic genes was enhanced at 3 weeks after birth but largely reduced at 8 weeks after birth in Ltbp2/4S DKO mouse lung tissue

Severe disruption of elastic fibers and alveolar walls in Ltbp2/4S DKO mouse lungs suggested impaired elastogenesis and/or an increase in elastolysis in these tissues. Therefore, we analyzed the mRNA expression level of the genes involved in elastic fiber formation and degradation in the lungs at different developmental stages. In neonatal lungs, the expression levels of ECM-related genes were not drastically changed, and the differences from wild type mice were less than 2-fold (Supplementary Fig. S4a). However, at 3 weeks after birth, when Ltbp2/4S DKO mice showed partial lethality (Fig. 2), the expression levels of Eln and Fbn2 were increased about 10-fold and 3-fold, respectively, in Ltbp2/4S DKO mouse lungs, compared with that of wild type lungs (Supplementary Fig. S4b). The increase in Fbn1 and Lox expression in Ltbp2/4S DKO tissues was not statistically significant, but these data indicate compensatory expression of Eln but no notable increase in elastolytic metalloproteases. These findings suggested that disruption of elastic fibers was primarily caused by defects in elastic fiber formation in Ltbp2/4S DKO lung tissues at this stage, rather than by degradation of elastic fibers. At 8 weeks after birth, which is the period when surviving Ltbp2/S DKO mice develop advanced-stage emphysema, Eln expression approached the normal level, and expression of other elastogenic genes, including Fn1, Fbn1, Fbn2, Fbln4, Fbln5, and Lox was dramatically decreased, whereas the expression level of Mmp12 (macrophage elastase) was increased nearly 3-fold (Supplementary Fig. S4c). These data suggest that elastic fiber-producing mesenchymal cells were impaired and that the MMP-12 produced by macrophages further degraded elastic fibers in Ltbp2/4S DKO mouse lung tissues at this stage.

Either LTBP-2 or -4 is necessary for microfibril formation in serum-free culture of mouse embryonic fibroblasts

To test the hypothesis that LTBP-4 compensates for the loss of LTBP-2 in microfibril formation, we analyzed microfibril formation in vitro using cultured mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) obtained from mutant mouse embryos. MEFs were cultured in serum-free media for 4 days and immunostained with anti-fibrillin-1 (for microfibril formation) as well as anti-LTBP-2 and -4 antibodies. Wild type MEFs produced a fibrillin-1–positive microfibril meshwork on the cells, and Ltbp2 null MEFs and Ltbp4S null MEFs showed slightly reduced signals by anti-fibrillin-1 antibody staining (Fig. 5a–c). Notably, microfibril meshwork formation was significantly abrogated in Ltbp2/4S DKO MEFs (Fig. 5d, and Supplementary Fig. S5a), but was rescued by the addition of either 5 nM of recombinant LTBP-2 or -4S (Fig. 5E,F, and Supplementary Fig. S5a). mRNA expression of Fbn1 and Fbn2 was even increased in Ltbp2/4S DKO MEFs by 2-fold compared to WT MEFs (Supplementary Fig. S5b). These data indicate that either LTBP-2 or LTBP-4S is required for fibrillin-positive microfibril meshwork formation under serum-free conditions. However, microfibril meshwork formation was indistinguishable between the genotypes when cells were cultured in 3% serum-containing medium (Supplementary Fig. S6), suggesting that an unknown element(s) contained in fetal bovine serum promoted microfibril formation without a requirement for endogenous LTBPs. In contrast, elastin deposition onto microfibrils, which was visualized by immunostaining with anti-elastin and anti-fibulin-5 antibodies after cells were cultured in 10% serum-containing media for 14 days, strictly depended on the presence of LTBP-4S protein, with or without LTBP-2 (Supplementary Figs S7 and S8).

Figure 5: Microfibril formation on cultured MEFs from mutant mice.

MEFs of all genotypes were cultured in serum-free media for four days, and the ECM was stained with anti-fibrillin-1, anti-LTBP-2, and anti-LTBP-4 antibodies, followed by fluorophore-labeled secondary antibodies corresponding to each first antibody (green for fibrillin-1, white for LTBP-2, and red for LTBP-4). Nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33258. MEFs lacking either LTBP-2 (b) or LTBP-4S (c) produced a weak but clear fibrillin-1 meshwork as observed in wild type MEFs (a), whereas MEFs lacking both LTBP-2 and LTBP-4S only produced aggregated deposition but no fibrous fibrillin-1–positive meshwork (d). Supplementation of recombinant protein of LTBP-2 (e) or LTBP-4S (f) at a concentration of 5 nM into the cultured medium restored microfibril meshwork formation on Ltbp2/4S DKO MEFs. Bars: 150 μm.

Disruption of ciliary zonules in Ltbp2 null mice was compensated by ectopic LTBP-4 overexpression

Next, we overexpressed LTBP-4 in the eyes of mice with an Ltbp2 null background, to assess whether LTBP-4 could compensate for the loss of LTBP-2 in vivo. Knock-in mice that had a CAG-promoter-driven Ltbp4S cDNA at the Rosa26 locus displayed enhanced expression of Ltbp4S in the whole body, and survived to adulthood without any gross malformation (Supplementary Fig. S9). These mice were crossed with Ltbp2 null mice to obtain Ltbp2 null; Ltbp4S KI mice. Without the Ltbp4S knock-in allele, eyes from 4-week-old Ltbp2 null mice exhibited fragmented ciliary zonules (Fig. 6a,b). However, the zonules were partially restored by the presence of ectopically expressed LTBP-4S in the eyes of Ltbp2 null; Ltbp4S KI mice (Fig. 6c), while LTBP-4S protein co-localized with the fibrillin-1 present in ciliary zonule microfibrils. These data indicated that LTBP-2 and -4 have an overlapping functions in forming the robust architecture of ciliary zonules in vivo.

Figure 6: Restoration of ciliary zonule formation in Ltbp2−/−; Ltbp4S KI mice.

Ltbp4S KI mice ubiquitously expressed LTBP-4S in the whole body, including ciliary bodies, whereas LTBP-4 was not expressed in ciliary bodies of wild type mice. By crossing these mice with Ltbp2−/− mice, Ltbp2−/−; Ltbp4S KI mice were produced, and ciliary zonule formation of the mouse eyes was visualized using immunofluorescent analysis, as in Fig. 5. LTBP-2 and fibrillin-1 co-localized on ciliary zonules of wild type mouse eyes, but fibrous fibrillin-1 staining was largely absent in the Ltbp2−/− eye. Ectopic expression of LTBP-4 in ciliary bodies restored ciliary zonule formation in Ltbp2−/−; Ltbp4S KI mouse eyes. Bars: 100 μm.

— Nature Scientific Reports

[worldwhampion]

Null's vice-versa parent-child dynamic with the atlas 2/2

NULL AS A PARENTAL FIGURE TO THE ATLAS

Null eventually discovered their identity as the creator, and how the atlas purposefully took away all of their past memories from them, without having seemingly any qualms with it. Suffice to say, they were mad about it, which they did have the right to. Knowing you’re a copy of the person who created the machine running the simulations, which you are put into without consent, would give you unimaginable things to think about. It’s no wonder why null is so cynical; try living a normal life while having such knowledge of yourself and reality. Even worse, this was after their pride got shattered, which on its own is already hard enough to deal with.

In the words of null themself to the atlas, this is their reaction: “'I made you. I made everything…”. They see the atlas’s creations as their own - they’re seeing the atlas as an extension of themself (like how some parents tend to). There is also this line: ‘Everything I have done for you… everything you see, you see through my eyes! It is mine - my birthright!' When you read the two lines together, null comes across as the type of parent who believes their child should owe them their life, just for having brought them into existence. Interestingly at the same time, null also comes across as a whiny entitled child.

To rub it in further, there is this line: ‘I’m glad I left you,’ They said. ‘You deserve to be alone.’ Being at the receiving end, the atlas must have been feeling some horrible things. This is about the worst thing a parent can say to their child (who they’d left behind to die alone). The reason the atlas started with the travellers in the first place, was to be with its creator again when it started to die, and to find answers for why they left it behind. Possibly like null, the atlas could be thinking it’s due to it not being worth enough - after all, it’s said that the atlas has been replaced with a miniaturized (better) version of itself. It is presumably after this heated encounter that the atlas has banished null from reality (very very vaguely implied?). Anyhow, after that last line, it’d be understandable for the atlas to cut null off. Though from null’s point of view at that point, the atlas chose to laugh at their life’s work, and to hide their past identity from them - making their reaction is also quite understandable.

TELAMON AND ABYSS AFTERTHOUGHT

The atlas once referred to telamon as a sibling. Now if null sees the atlas as a parental figure, then telamon would be their uncle (i don’t know any gender neutral terms for uncle). And if null is the parental figure, then telamon could be considered their child too like the atlas. The abyss could also be added. They’re an older version of the atlas, so they would be the atlas’s (and telamon’s) older sibling. It’s one hell of a complicated family tree…

---

here's a google doc document of it for better reading - feel free to add comments there! and sources of certain lore texts i used are also listed there.

---

PART 1. > PART 2.