I guess properly is important there, in reality certain initial orderings are more common and we use certain techniques for shuffling with our hands making it less random than "properly".
That was my first thought as well, "The camera will be used to take photographs" seem pointless, if it's a camera app it's obvious if it's not it does not help the reviewer.
I don't think you can date the axe-heads from the material? I assume they date based on objects found nearby and the technique used to make them. Which is also why knowing the exact location is important.
From the abstract: "The resulting Δ14C record exhibits an abrupt spike occurring in a single year at 14 300–14 299 cal yr BP and a century-long event between 14 and 13.9 cal kyr BP."
[ 2176412 ERROR C:\Users\user\.cargo\registry\src\index.crates.io-6f17d22bba15001f\wgpu-0.16.0\src\backend\direct.rs:1174] Shader translation error for stage ShaderStages(NONE | FRAGMENT): FXC D3DCompile error (0x80004005): C:\Users\user\git\Egregoria\called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value(432,18-24): error X3005: 'ddx': identifier represents a variable, not a function
It confused me that the letter boxes were divided in 7+3, thus I thought it would be two words while the correct answer was a single 10 letter word. Maybe try to avoid wrapping words.
I prefer rebasing too, but merging doesn't mean that you have to merge in all noisy minor fixups, you can combine the strategies and rebase the feature branch into a set of sensible commits, then merge that branch. Preferably even with a CI that checks each commit before merge such that it will not cause issues later during eventual bisections. --fixup and --autosquash are handy for such workflows.
I would prefer if that was not "auto" marked in that way, it felt nicer to try to think about each crossing. Perhaps something that could be turned on and off.