【推荐1】For many of us, Tide is the most squeaky-clean of home helpers. This year, the 4,000 Americans selected this super-cleaner not only as the most trusted detergent brand but also as the single most trusted brand in the Home and Family products category.

When Cincinnati-based manufacturer Protect & Gamble（P&G）set out to create Tide in the 1930s, it was referred to as Project X. The company first sold soap and candles, made from the animal fats. But as the 20th century took shape, kerosene replaced candles, and plant-based cleansers such as Ivory Soap replaced those made from animal fats. Protect & Gamble was seeing a huge chunk of business being washed down the drain. The hope was that the newfangled, entirely synthetic Project X would save it.

“This may ruin the soap business,” P&G’s chairman William Gamble said at one point. “But if anybody is going to ruin the soap business it had better be Protect & Gamble.”

At first, many of the formulas cleaned clothes but left them like sandpaper. It took Byerly and the Cincinnati chemists ten years to come up with a solution. They finally hit upon a mixture that creates molecules that grab hard not only to grease and dirt but also to water. It all just washes away, leaving clean fabric without any soapy remaining. And Tide was an instant success.

Sold first as powder, the product was a huge hit. P&G’s marketing department leaped into action, giving boxes with washing machines and flooding magazines and newspapers with ads showing happy and healthy housewives literally hugging the iconic orange box.

Then it would be turned into a liquid（1984）and later the fantastically profitable Tide Power Pods（2012）. The company has developed an almost endless series of varieties: Tide with special scents, Tide with fabric softness, and, most recently, high-powered Tide for environmentally friendly cold-water washes.

And soon, perhaps, the newest variety might be Space Tide, the product of a new partnership between P&G and NASA. Tide is taking a test run to the International Space Station to see how well the detergent cleans and reacts in the low-water, no-gravity environment outside Earth’s atmosphere.

【推荐1】Chinese buyers used to prize foreign brands, thinking that products made by American or European companies are of higher quality (质量) than Chinese ones. Increasingly, that’s no longer the case.

Chinese people born before 1985 generally think that foreign brands are better than Chinese ones, billionaire William Li told Business Insider during a recent interview on CCTV 9. But for those who were born after 1985, it is a different picture.

“When I first went to the United Kingdom in 1997, I thought that the difference between China and Europe was quite big,” Li said. “But for those born in the 1990s, when they visit Europe or the US, they do not think there is a big difference.”

The change in thinking among Chinese buyers is showing up in many markets in China where western companies used to control. A study by Credit Suisse published in March found that young Chinese buyers are increasingly showing a “home brand bias”.

More than 90% of young Chinese buyers would prefer to buy home appliance brands, according to the study. Meanwhile, home companies producing food, drinks, or personal care products increased their share of the market by 3.3% over the last ten years to nearly 70%.

“Chinese buyers, especially the younger ones, don’t just believe that foreign brands are better. Right now, Chinese buyers think China is good and ‘Made in China’ is not bad at all,” Charlie Chen, head of China buyer research at Credit Suisse, told South China Morning Post in March.

The Chinese smartphone market is controlled by home companies- Huawei, Oppo, Vivo, and Xiaomi. Apple is the only foreign brand in the top five, but it has lost large ground to the home brands in recent years. Its market share is believed to be down to 37% from a 2015 high of 54%.

【推荐1】You can tell a lot about people's general state of mind based on their social media feeds. Are they always tweeting about their biggest annoyances or posting pictures of particularly cute kitties? In a similar fashion, researchers are turning to Twitter for clues about the overall happiness of entire geographic communities.

What they're finding is that regional variation in the use of common phrases produces predictions that don't always reflect the local state of well being. But removing from their analyses just three specific terms — good, love and LOL — greatly improves the accuracy of the methods.

“We're living in a crazy COVID-19 era. And now more than ever, we're using social media to adapt to a new normal and reach out to the friends and family that we can't meet face-to-face.” Kokil Jaidka studies computational linguistics at the National University of Singapore. “But our words aren't useful just to understand what we, as individuals, think and feel. They're also useful clues about the community we live in.”

One of the simpler methods that many scientists use to analyze the data involves correlating words with positive or negative emotions. But when those records are compared with phone surveys that assess regional well-being, Jaidka says, they don't paint an accurate picture of the local zeitgeist.

Being able to get an accurate read on the mood of the population is no laughing matter.

“That's particularly important now, in the time of COVID, where we're expecting a mental health crisis and we're already seeing in survey data the largest decrease in subjective well-being in 10 years at least, if not ever.”

To find out why, Jaidka and her team analyzed billions of tweets from around the United States. And they found that among the most frequently used terms on Twitter are LOL, love and good. And they actually throw the analysis off. Why the disconnect?

“Internet language is really a different beast than regular spoken language. We've adapted words from the English vocabulary to mean different things in different situations.” says Jaidka. “Take, for example, LOL. I've tweeted the word LOL to express irony, annoyance and sometimes just pure surprise. When the methods for measuring LOL as a marker of happiness were created in the 1990s, it still meant laughing out loud.”

"There are plenty of terms that are less misleading," says Jaidka. "Our models tell us that words like excited, fun, great, opportunity, interesting, fantastic and those are better words for measuring subjective well-being."

【推荐2】Researchers in Norway say they have found what they believe is the world’s oldest runestone (符文石)—a stone with ancient writing on it.

Runes are the characters in several Germanic letters. These characters were used in northern Europe from ancient times until the change to the Latin letters. The origin of runic writing is unclear. The Norwegian researchers say the writing on the runestone could be up to 2,000 years old.

The runestone is square and flat. The runes carved into it may show the earliest example of recorded words in Scandinavia, the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo said. It said it was “among the oldest runic writings ever found” and “the oldest runestone ever found in the world”.

Kristel Zilmer is a professor at University of Oslo, of which the museum is part. Zilmer said, “This find will give us a lot of knowledge about the use of runes in the early Iron Age. This may be one of the first attempts to use runes in Norway and Scandinavia on stone.”

Runes have been found on stones and on home goods. Older runes have been found on other objects, also, but not on stones. The oldest known runic writing is on a hair tool made from bone. Zilmer said that the ancient writer might have used a knife or needle to make the runes.

Measuring 31 centimeters by 32 centimeters, the stone has several kinds of writings. Not all of them make sense. Eight runes on the front of the stone read “idiberug”—which could be the name of a person or family but not sure.

There is still a lot of research to be done on the rock, named Svingerud stone after where it was found.

The Museum of Cultural History is going to hold a public showing of the runestone for a month. The museum holds Norway’s largest collection of historical objects, from ancient times to the modern day.

【推荐3】For more than 50 years, seawater has flowed through the Hong Kong’s toilets. And in 2013, Hong Kong built a system that used seawater to cool part of the city. The system sends cold seawater to a factory with heat exchangers. The seawater takes in heat to cool pipes full of circulating (循环的) water. That cooled water then flows into buildings to cool rooms. The slightly warmed seawater is sent back to the ocean. Known as district cooling, this type of system tends to use far less energy than typical air conditioners.

How much water and energy had this strategy saved Hong Kong? And why weren’t other coastal cities doing this? A team at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology set out for answers. They focused on Hong Kong and two other big coastal cities: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and Miami, Fla. The idea was to see what it might look like if all three adopted city-wide saltwater systems.

All three places would save lots of fresh water and energy, the researchers found. These savings came from the more efficient saltwater air conditioning. Though costly to build, saltwater-cooling systems could pay off in the long run for many cities.

The researchers figured out how emissions (排放) of greenhouse gases would drop if each city instead used seawater for cooling and flushing (冲刷). Next, they studied how much pollution would be created to build the new system. They compared these results to see how emissions of climate-warming gases would change for each city.

Hong Kong would see the biggest cut in greenhouse gases if the system were expanded to the whole city. It could drop by some 250,000 tons each year. Miami could see a drop of around 7,700 tons of carbon pollution per year. Saltwater cooling would cause more planet-warming gases in Jeddah than it would save. The reason: Jeddah’s unplanned urban expansion and all the pipes that would be needed to service it. The pollution coming from building such a large system would be higher than what the system would save.