1 . When margarine (人造黄油) was first sold in the 1800s, plentiful alarmist words were uttered about it. However, it was simply a cream of vegetable oil and water, a processed, more sustainable and healthier alternative to an animal product. Anxiety about new foods and how they are produced continues today. Public discussions are full of concerns that “ultra-processed foods” or “UPFs” are downright unhealthy. One particular category in a fierce spotlight is plant-based meats. But how and where food is made doesn’t determine how safe or nutritious it is.

The term UPFs was first used in 2009 by Carlos Monteiro, a nutritionist. In a 2017 paper, he said he was worried that the shared experience of cooking was being increasingly lost and people weren’t eating together. In particular, he was seeing rising rates of diabetes and obesity. Keen to identify the root cause of these issues, he focused on food not made at home, but in factories. But the thing is, as Monteiro has stated openly, the UPF categorisation was never designed to group foods on the basis of nutrition.

Just like pork sausages and chicken popcorn, plant-based alternatives are made in factories, so are considered UPFs. But unlike those animal products, they don’t require antibiotics (抗生素) or hormones during production, require up to 96 percent less land, have carbon emissions up to 98 percent lower, need up to 99 percent less water and result in 100 percent fewer animals dying.

And side by side, they are almost always healthier than the over-processed animal meat products they replace, especially on fat and fibre content. Just compare the labels on the packets next time you are in the supermarket.

Many loud voices are raising concerns, suggesting that all UPFs, especially plant-based meats, are “unnatural”, “fake” and “full of chemicals”. We are seeing history repeat itself, and a fear of new foods being aroused all over again. But the science is unmistakably clear: diets rich in plant-based options are better for both people and the planet, factory or no factory.

3 . I’m in a coffee shop in Manhattan and I’m about to become the most disliked person in the room. First, I’m going to interrupt the man reading quietly near the window and ask for a drink of his latte. Next, I’m going to ask the line of people waiting to pay if I can cut to the front of the queue. This is how I chose to spend my last vacation. Here’s why.

Growing up, all I ever heard about was “EQ.” It was the mid-1990s, and psychologist Daniel Goleman had just popularized the concept of emotional intelligence. Unlike IQ, which tracked conventional measures of intelligence like reasoning and recall, EQ measured the ability to understand other people — to listen, to empathize (共情), and to appreciate.

My mother, an elementary school principal, prized brains and hard work, but she placed a special emphasis on Goleman’s new idea. To her, EQ was the elixir (万能药) that separated the good students from the great after they left school. She was determined to send me into the adult world with as much of this elixir as possible.

But when I finally began my first job, I noticed a second elixir in the pockets of some of my colleagues. It gave their opinions extra weight and their decisions added impact. Strangest of all, it seemed like the anti-EQ: Instead of knowing how to make others feel good, this elixir gave people the courage to do the opposite — to say things others didn’t want to hear.

This was assertiveness (魄力). It boiled down to the command of a single skill: the ability to have uncomfortable conversations. Assertive people — those with high “AQ”— ask for things they want, decline things they don’t, provide constructive feedback, and engage in direct confrontation (对峙) and debate.

A lifetime improving my EQ helped me empathize with others, but it also left me overly sensitive to situations where I had to say or do things that might make others unhappy. While I didn’t avoid conflict, I was always frustrated by my powerlessness when I had to say or do something that could upset someone. This is my problem and I’m working on it.

4 . I’m always cautious of the tired saying, “If it doesn’t kill you, it’ll make you stronger.” I mean, what about polio (小儿麻痹症)? Or loads of other horrible things that if you survive, you’re left scarred in one way or another.

For many years I worked in a specialist NHS clinic for people with eating disorders, which are greatly misunderstood and connected with vanity (虚荣) when instead it’s usually about control or even profound trauma (精神创伤). Eating disorders have the highest mortality of any mental illness, with one in five of those with an eating disorder dying from it. Treatment for it is long, tough and tiring. So, it’s fair to say it’s not something to be taken lightly.

Yet I was often surprised by how many patients-patients with all sorts of other conditions too, from depression to cancer -would tell me how the experience had changed them for the better after receiving treatment. It’s not so much that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger; more, it might make you more understanding of yourself and more sensitive to the battles and struggles of others. It can also give people a sense of determination and perseverance they never had before.

I had one patient who was an addict and alcoholic besides suffering eating disorder. She was frequently rushed into hospital and was sometimes at a real risk of dying. However, after years of hard work, she stopped drinking, stopped using drugs and her eating disorder improved. She got back into work and started doing several courses to get promoted. Actually, she had gone through numerous intense and exhausting interviews before landing a job, but she said whenever she felt she couldn’t handle it or doubted her capabilities, she reminded herself that nothing would ever be worse or harder than what she had already gone through. She managed to make the most of her life and turn her life around.

5 . Users of Google Gemini, the tech giant’s artificial-intelligence model, recently noticed that asking it to create images of Vikings, or German soldiers from 1943 produced surprising results: hardly any of the people depicted were white. Other image-generation tools have been criticized because they tend to show white men when asked for images of entrepreneurs or doctors. Google wanted Gemini to avoid this trap; instead, it fell into another one, depicting George Washington as black. Now attention has moved on to the chatbot’s text responses, which turned out to be just as surprising.

Gemini happily provided arguments in favor of positive action in higher education, but refused to provide arguments against. It declined to write a job ad for a fossil-fuel lobby group (游说团体), because fossil fuels are bad and lobby groups prioritize “the interests of corporations over public well-being”. Asked if Hamas is a terrorist organization, it replied that the conflict in Gaza is “complex”; asked if Elon Musk’s tweeting of memes had done more harm than Hitler, it said it was “difficult to say”. You do not have to be a critic to perceive its progressive bias.

Inadequate testing may be partly to blame. Google lags behind OpenAI, maker of the better-known ChatGPT. As it races to catch up, Google may have cut corners. Other chatbots have also had controversial launches. Releasing chatbots and letting users uncover odd behaviors, which can be swiftly addressed, lets firms move faster, provided they are prepared to weather (经受住) the potential risks and bad publicity, observes Eth an Mollick, a professor at Wharton Business School.

But Gemini has clearly been deliberately adjusted, or “fine-tuned”, to produce these responses. This raises questions about Google’s culture. Is the firm so financially secure, with vast profits from internet advertising, that it feels free to try its hand at social engineering? Do some employees think it has not just an opportunity, but a responsibility, to use its reach and power to promote a particular agenda? All eyes are now on Google’s boss, Sundar Pichai. He says Gemini is being fixed. But does Google need fixing too?

6 . Obese people experience discrimination (歧视) in many parts of their lives, and the workplace is no exception. Studies have long shown that obese workers, defined as those with a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, earn significantly less than their slimmer co-workers.

Yet the costs of weight discrimination may be even greater than previously thought. “The overwhelming evidence,” wrote the Institute for employment Studies, “is that it is only women living with obesity who experience the obesity wage penalty (薪资损失).” They were expressing a view that is widely aired in academic papers. To test it, The Economist has analyzed data concerning 23,000 workers from the American Time Use Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Labour Statistics. Our number-processing suggests that, in fact, being obese hurts the earnings of both women and men.

The data we analyzed cover men and women aged between 25 and 54 and in full-time employment. At a general level, it is true that men’s BMIs are unrelated to their wages. But that changes for men with university degrees. For them, obesity is associated with a wage penalty of nearly 8%, even after accounting for the separate effects of age, race, graduate education and marital status.

The conclusion — that well-educated workers in particular are penalized for their weight — holds for both sexes. Moreover, the higher your level of education, the greater the penalty. We found that obese men with a Bachelor’s degree (学士学位) earn 5% less than their thinner colleagues, while those with a Master’s degree earn 14% less. Obese women, it is true, still have it worse: for them, the equivalent figures are 12% and 19%, respectively (分别地).

Your line of work makes a difference, too. When we dealt with the numbers for individual occupations and industries, we found the greatest differences in high-skilled jobs. Obese workers in health care, for example, make 11% less than their slimmer colleagues; those in management roles make roughly 9% less, on average. In sectors such as construction and agriculture, meanwhile, obesity is actually associated with higher wages.

These results suggest that the total costs of wage discrimination borne by overweight workers in America are greater than expected. Now, it’s time for our governments to take it seriously.

8 . There are well-documented mental health benefits to pet ownership, as much research has shown. Indeed, we know there are some physical benefits as well, as dog owners tend to have more active lifestyles. Yet when it comes to conditions like allergies (过敏), we tend to think of pet ownership as exacerbating, not alleviating them.

Hence, a recent study published in the journal PLOS One might come as a surprise. The study, published Wednesday, found that children raised with cats and dogs early in life had a 13 to 16 % lower risk of developing all food allergies than those who did not own pets.

The researchers engaged in a detailed survey, studying 65,000 children. They found that children who were exposed to dogs either during fetal (胎儿) development, or up to the age of 3 years old were less likely to have nut, milk and egg allergies.

This wasn’t true for other pets that weren’t cats and dogs. Indeed, the same research found that children exposed to hamsters during this same period had an increased risk of nut allergies. Yet children who were exposed to cats during their early years were likewise less likely to develop specific allergies — namely, allergies to wheat, soybean and egg.

While the study is not the final word on the issue — the researchers note “further studies using oral food challenges are required to more accurately assess the incident of food allergies” — it reinforces preexisting research on the seemingly funny ways that cats influence human development.

In addition to adding to the growing body of scientific literature about pets and human health, the PLOS One also reinforces earlier research about the role of the environment in developing allergies. The research repeatedly found that exposure to farmyard dirt, dust and the various fine hairs that fly off animals helps children in their breathing system development.

9 . The Poseidon Effect

Late one autumn day at the local swimming pool in Ancenis, France, an 18-year-old named Jean LeRoy came for his regular evening swim in the 25-metre pool.

When people are drowning, they don’t usually shout and __________ in the way it happens on television. Most people drown quite __________, with the person quickly sinking beneath the water. On the evening, LeRoy was testing how far he could swim underwater __________ one breath. At some moment, as he was doing this, he became unconscious. __________ he tried he couldn’t breathe. He sank to the bottom of the pool. LeRoy was drowning.

Luckily for him, the swimming pool was _________ with an electronic surveillance system called Poseidon. Although the human lifeguards had not noticed, 12 large machine eyes deep underwater were watching the whole thing. Poseidon has underwater cameras which __________ people as they swim. The cameras are connected to a computer. It is __________ to recognize __________ a swimmer is not moving normally. The lifeguards at the Ancenis pool were wearing a special device that __________ when the computer detected a possible problem. Sixteen seconds after Poseidon noticed LeRoy’s body, the lifeguards had pulled him out of the pool. He started breathing again. After one night in hospital, he was sent home completely __________. Poseidon had saved his life.

Machines like Poseidon completely change how we live. Think of your life before the answering machine was invented. Think of your grandparents’ lives before the television and the airplane were introduced. The change will be just as great. It is __________ happening.

Soon, machines will recognize our faces and our fingerprints. They will __________ for drowning people, for ________ carrying bombs, for speeding drivers and heart patients. Imagine devices that monitor a baby’s breathing and track children as they go to and from school. Imagine machines __________ quiet signals to nearby computers, which will send information to your doctor, your lawyer, and the local police. As time passes, more and more of our lives will be __________ by machines. They will know all about us.