1 . It is a common question to ask yourself: What do you want to be when you grow up?

In the past it has generally been accepted that a person will follow one career path, but an emerging group of people have changed this idea. By pursuing jobs across several walks, this group has come to be known as “slashers (斜杠青年)”.

There are many reasons why this has become popular, particularly among those under the age of 30. In modern competitive society, having multiple income streams (多种收入来源) is one of the best ways to create financial security.

Zhao Sichen is one follower of the slasher movement. The 34-year-old is an English teacher at Tsinghua University High School. Outside the classroom, Zhao also works as project manager in charge of education programs at the Internet tech company NetEase.

In addition to providing a sense of job security, becoming a slasher reduces boredom and prevents becoming burned out on (不再热衷) focusing on a single path.

According to the Guardian, “Entrepreneurs (创业者) are a typical example of a group that expects to spread their careers across multiple areas.” Erin Albert is a typical slasher in the UK. Apart from having written books, Albert is an assistant professor, an entrepreneur and a law student. Albert often asks his students to think about, “why they can’t both take an immediate job offer they are not sure about as well as work toward their ‘dream’ job”.

Technology has also promoted this choice. Online tools and platforms have allowed people to pursue different interests and career paths as they have promoted the ability to work remotely. Never has it been easier for those who have interests in a variety of careers to pursue them at the same time. It seems that right now the sky is the limit for those who are considering what they want to do in the future.

2 . Ai-Da sits behind a desk, a paintbrush in her hand. She looks up at the person posing for her, and then back down as she applies another drop of paint onto the canvas(画布). A lifelike portrait is taking shape. If you didn’t know a robot produced it, this portrait could pass as the work of a human artist.

Ai-Da produces portraits of sitting subjects using a robotic hand attached to her lifelike figure. She’s also able to talk, giving detailed answers to questions about her artistic process and attitudes towards technology. She even gave a TEDx talk titled “The Intersection of Art and AI” in Oxford several years ago. Ai-Da’s creators have also been experimenting with having her write and perform her own poetry.

But how are we to interpret Ai-Da’s output? Should we consider her paintings and poetry original and creative? Are these works actually art?

What discussions about AI and creativity often overlook is the fact that creativity isn’t an absolute quality that can be defined, measured and reproduced objectively. When we describe an object-for instance, a child’s drawing—as being creative, we project our own assumptions about culture onto it. Indeed, art never exists in isolation. It always needs someone to give it “art” status. And the criteria for whether you think something is art are formed by both your expectations and broader cultural conceptions.

If we extend this line of thinking to AI, it follows that no Al application or robot can objectively be “creative”. It is always we—humans—that decide whether works created by AI are art.

Some may see robot-produced paintings as something coming from creative computers, while others may be skeptical, given the fact that robots act on clear human instructions. In any case, attribution (归属)of creativity never depends on technical arrangement alone—no computer is objectively creative. Rather, the attribution of computational creativity is largely inspired by contexts of reception. Through particular social information, some people are inspired to think of AI output as art, systems as artists, and computers as creators. Therefore, as with any piece of art, your appreciation of AI output ultimately depends on your own interpretation.

6 . Do extroverts (外向者) make better leaders?

There is a general impression that you're better off in the workplace and in life — if you're an extrovert. Understandably, this idea is most likely to be spread by extroverts themselves, who are "_______ and proud".

In what could be _______ news for introverts, a new study has found that extroverts do have the _______ that increases their chances of success. They _______ a distinct advantage in four aspects: emotional; interpersonal; motivational and performance related. Michael Wilmot, the scholar who led the study, _______ that extroversion is closely associated with experiencing positive emotions more regularly. As happy employees are usually more satisfied, they _______ to work harder and are thought to be a better leader as a result. The way the extroverts behave also helps to protect them from stress or negative experiences at work. _______, extroverts enjoy the _______ of others, so they seem to adapt better to different social situations, which is a strong leadership skill.

_______ the research suggests that extroverts have plenty to be positive about, Wilmot says introverts should not be ________. They are not at an unavoidable disadvantage. Why is that? First, few people can be defined ________ as an introvert or extrovert since everyone displays a mixture of behaviors. Secondly, numerous other characteristics ________ workplace success, including cognitive ability, and the ability to ________ negative emotions. There are many jobs, such as computer programming, where having introverted characteristics such as ________ skills or the ability to focus, would be more beneficial than extroverted characteristics such as sociability. If you ________ his view, remember that some of the world's most successful people are introverts. Among them are legendary investor Warren Buffett and Oscar-winning actress Meryl Streep. They all prove the point that you don't have to be extroverts to succeed in life.

7 . Female birds sing, too, but scientists tend to tune in to male birdsong and ignore female songs. It highlights a long-standing bias (偏见) and helps us think about why that bias persists (持续).

Since the beginning of modern birdsong research, the field has focused on male songbirds. Any serious birder could tell you that females do sing, sometimes as frequently as males. However, early birdsong researchers tended to be men. Men are significantly less likely than women to lead research projects studying female songs. Thus, we are missing key behaviors as a result of historical biases caused by a lack of diverse participation in science.

So how do we make science welcoming and accessible for all? We need to communicate better with nonscientists. Engaging the public in science is essential for basic science findings that influence how we perceive the world around us.

For example, understanding that female birds do sing matters not only to scientists but also to the billions of people who hear the sounds of wild birds every day. In many species, males and females look similar from a distance, but can be distinguished by ear. Paying close attention to which sounds each sex makes and thinking about why they might be producing them opens up a richer window into the environment around us. It turns out female birds use songs for all the same reasons male birds do: to signal individual identity, defend valuable territories and attract potential mates.

Public awareness of female birdsong has the potential to change the science itself. Apps like eBird collect millions of public observations and audio recordings of birds every year. Increasing public engagement and involvement with research promises to benefit the scientific community and society more broadly. In many cases, scientists and experts already have strongly held biases about the way the world works, and these biases allow mistaken conclusions to persist. Public observers often make better observers of the world around them because they lack preconceived ideas.

Female birds sing! We welcome a future where research and communication combine to improve our understanding of the world around us and deepen our connections to each other and the natural world.

10 . For a word that suggests as little as possible, so many different things fall under the label of “minimalism” at the moment. A home decoration might be described as minimalist if there's nothing bung on its white walls. A dress is minimalist if it's simple and functional. Avoiding using your phone, checking your email or updating social media is “digital minimalism.” Everything on Instagram seems to be minimalist.

But in the obsession with the objects labeled minimalist, we have lost the basic ideas of minimalism. It might appear simple but it's also a philosophical challenge, not to find exactly the right stuff to buy but to rethink our relationship to the world around us, from the ground up. Rather than the single blank style that's now noticeable everywhere, minimalism is fundamentally about a diversity of visions.

Minimalism, to me, is more about attention than anything else. It advocates seeing the world not as a series of products to consume, but personal feelings or sensory experiences to have on your own terms. An ordinary lamp can be as beautiful as the Mona Lisa. Historically, minimalism tells us to focus on what doesn't at first seem pleasant or beautiful and turn it into art instead of creating a worldview based only on what we already like. So often minimalism is thought to be permanent, a fixed end state, instead of change. But minimalism is a process that has to be kept up and refreshed day to day.

Minimalism as a style will unavoidably end, as all trends do, and we'll turn against the empty walls and embrace bright colors and loud patterns and call them the next new thing. But minimalism's fundamenta1 ideas will remain as long as human civilization, because we never quite learn its lesson: What already exists immediately around us is more important than all of our anxieties about what's not there yet. The imperfection of reality is perfect.