在TIME雜誌中，有個地方看不太懂，想請教大家
文章標題是 The psychic toll of nonstop tragedies
第二段中的 ambiguity intact 在這裡是什麼意思呢？
What are we supposed to do with al lthis? Every second day seems to bring
some fresh outrage, "happening now" on cable news and pinging onto our phones
before we've hand a chance to digest the last horror. An informed citizenry
begins to feel like Lucille Ball at that assembly line that keeps picking
up speed, except nobody's laughing: in the space of 12 days, Baton Rouge,
Falcon Heights... then Baton Rough again.
And still visible in the rearview mirror is Orlando, receding with its
ambiguity intact, yet somehow no longer confusing. A few weeks, plus a well
of feeling, made it possible to comprehend that a mass shooter, a homophobe
and a terrorist can exist in the same person, no matter what he calls himself.
麻煩高手幫忙解惑
謝謝!!!

你是有給兩段文(拍手鼓勵)，但是有可能"ambiguity"在前文有另外寫出來，所以你給的內容不算是足夠。Time需要付費讀這文章，我無法免費讀，所以這讓你自己從你的文章去找單獨從你給的兩段，一個可能性是指後頭的"a homophobe ..a terrorist"。畢竟最開始的新聞報導是報他是terrorist(他自己在打911時有說)，然後有人開始"挖"/報卦(所以到底是terrorist，還是homophobe？還是其它?-> ambiguity)，然後一路發展/報掛/挖內幕/...下來，"現在"(所以開始的ambiguity 保留住了(intact))的結論"大致"是他是.....也是....("... and ...")(也所以說yet somehow no longerconfusing，畢竟這是"現在"普遍接受的說法)如果前文有另外說明，那麼我前頭講的(可能)需要修正

謝謝dunchee大!! 這兩段文是文章前兩段囉 已經沒有再前文了

不逐字翻的大意應該是類似--Orlando 事件已漸漸遠離，當我們在往前行駛的車上用後照鏡觀察整件事，（想像在後照鏡中）漸次後退、細節不在清晰的事件全貌，blablabla...不*再

感謝yoson大的解釋!