【推荐2】Among the world’s waste-recycling pioneers, Germany is the leader. The country has quite a detailed way of sorting their waste-down to the color of glass waste, the type of paper, the separate bin for metals, etc.

Here below are what you should know about Germany’s waste sorting system：

◇You are expected to gather your waste in your apartment/housing area’s local public garbage bins.

◇There are commonly several types of public garbage bins available in the German’s apartment/housing areas：

Blue bin — for paper and cardboard

Green and white bin — for glass, different bins for differently colored glass, not available for holiday decorations and lights

Yellow/orange bin — for plastic and metals

Brown bin — for goods that can be changed naturally by bacteria into substances that don’t harm the environment, like leftovers, fruit and vegetables

Gray/black bin — for everything else that can’t be recycled such as used cat litter and animal waste

◇Some items don’t belong in these public garbage bins. Items like used batteries, electronics, unused paints, and lights must be returned to the special agent/locations so they can be properly recycled. Other items such as clothes, shoes, and oversized rubbish and furniture are advised to be donated or sold.

◇There’s this thing called Pfand in Germany, a certain part of the price for a bottled drink that you get back if you send back the bottle to certified (有资历的) shops. German law requires shops over a certain size selling bottled drinks have a Pfandruckgabestelle, or place for bottles with deposits (押金). These bottles usually made of glass or plastic will be refilled. Of course, there’re strict health regulations.

【推荐1】There are many ways to travel within a city. We can walk, cycle, or take a bus. But no matter which way we travel, we have to follow the route (线路) the city planners laid down for us.

Parkour practitioners (跑酷爱好者), however, see the city in a completely different way. To them, there are no designed routes. There are no walls and no stairs — they jump, climb, roll and crawl to move across, through, over and under anything that they find in their path. The city is their playground.

The International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) has noticed that this activity is drawing more and more people to it — there are 100, 000 people taking part in parkour today in the UK alone, according to The Guardian — and how it is helpful for people to be much stronger: It trains coordination and balance. So the FIG is thinking about recognizing parkour as a new sport and adding it to the Olympics by 2024.

But parkour practitioners themselves don’t seem to be happy with the idea. They see parkour as “a lifestyle”, wrote the website NextSportStar. “It’s a competition against the conditions rather than just a sport.”

Indeed, many do parkour just to “escape the daily routine and experience the city in different ways”, wrote reporter Oli Mould on The Conversation. They see parkour as a way to express themselves through relaxing moves and creative routes while freeing themselves from the pressure.

It’s great that the FIG wants to develop a new sport and stay close to a new cultural form. But it would be greater if they knew that not everything in life is a competition.

【推荐2】In 1835, William Talbot finally succeeded in producing a photograph of his country house. He declared that his was the first house ever known to have drawn its own picture. The drawing was formed “by the action of light upon sensitive paper.” Photography offered nature a “pencil” to paint herself through optical (光学的) and chemical means alone.

By the mid-nineteenth century, people no longer needed to hire a draftsman to draw detailed images because the process could be completed instantly with a camera. Advocates for the technology stated that not only was it more precise than the human hand — it was faster and cheaper.

The removal of human fallibility in the creating process was one of photography’s biggest selling points, but this also started debates about the new medium’s implications for visual culture. Could images made largely by a machine be considered art? If so, where did human creativity fit in this process?

As the twenty-first century becomes increasingly automated, more and more people attempt to identify where human agency exists in the technologically driven world. Images generated with artificial intelligence by companies like OpenAI are stimulating questions like those that emerged with the coming of the photograph. By typing a sentence, users can generate “new” images composed from images collected across the Internet. The result has been a flood of Al-generated images in places that are previously unique to human authors. Painting competitions, commercial graphic design and the fashion of portraiture (肖像) have all since collided (碰撞) with the technology in troubling ways.

The fine arts were thought to be a final hold-out of human creativity, but the surprisingly high quality of AI-generated images is producing deeper questions about the nature of originality. If the history of photography tells us anything, it’s that the debate won’t be settled quickly, straightforwardly, or by the institutions we typically associate with cultural gate keeping.

【推荐3】The study of psychology is facing a crisis. The Research Excellence Framework (the REF) has led to a research culture which is holding back attempts to stabilize psychology in particular, and science in general. The REF encourages universities to push for groundbreaking, innovative and exciting research in the form of 4* papers, but it does not reward the efforts of those who replicate(复制)studies.

The point of replicating a study is to test whether a statistically significant result will appear again if the experiments is repeated. Of course, a similar result may not appear - casting into questions the validity of the results from the first experiment.

Last year, the Open Science Collaboration attempted to replicate 100 studies from highly ranked psychological journalists. While 97% of the original studies had a statistically significant result, just 36% of the replications had the same outcome. Equally worrying: when an effect did appear, it was often much smaller than previously thought.

Recent data calls into question some widely influential findings in psychological science. These problems are not limited to psychology, however - many findings published in scientific literature may actually be false.

Science is supposed to be self-correcting and re-producibility is a cornerstone of the scientific method. Yet, we simply aren’t invested in replicating findings. We all want to be good researchers and understand more about how the world works. So why are we so reluctant to check our conclusions are valid?

Because no incentive(激励)is provided by the system we carry out our research in. In the UK, the REF rates the submitted research outputs in terms of their originality (how innovative is the research?), significance (does it have practical or commercial importance?), and rigour (is the research technically right?). Outputs are then awarded one to four stars. 4* papers are considered world-leading. The cumulative(累积的)total of 3* and 4* papers determines research funding allocation(分配)and has a knock-on effect on institutional position on the national ranking list and therefore attractiveness to students. Obviously, the more publications the better.

The focus on originality - publications exploring new areas of research using new models, and avoiding testing well-established theories - is the exact opposite of what science needs to be doing to solve doing to solve the troubling replication crisis. According to REF standards, replicating an already published piece of work is simply uninteresting.

Worryingly, many academics admit to engaging in at least one questionable research practice in order to achieve publication. Examples of this include: coming up with a theory after data is collected, stopping collecting data when an effect appears in case it disappears later, or only reporting the significant effects from collected data. Others simply fabricate data - Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel shockingly falsified data from more than 50 studies. The REF completely harms our efforts to produce a reliable body of knowledge. Why?

With the next REF submission just four years away, many researchers are effectively faced with a choice: be a good scientist, or be a successful academic who gets funding and a promotion.