2 . The pandemic has affected nearly all aspects of modern life, from the clothes we wear to the food we eat. There is one thing, however, that has remained almost unchanged: the emojis we send.

According to data from the Unicode Consortium (统一码联盟), nine of the 10 most-used emojis from 2019 also ranked among the top 10 this year. The tears of joy emoji ranked No.1, despite members of Gen Z deeming it uncool.

“It speaks to how many people use emojis. If emojis were a purely Gen Z thing, then you wouldn’t see it so highly ranked,” said Alexander Robertson, an emoji researcher at Google. “Because of the large number of people using emojis, even if one group thinks something is lame, they have to be a really big group to affect these statistics.”

And it makes sense that Gen Z would think that certain emojis aren’t fashionable. It’s part of the “teenager experience of creating a sense of subculture where there’s a right way and a wrong way of behaving.” Plus, there is a range of laughter that can be expressed: There’s light chuckling. There’s acknowledgement laughter, which is just a marker of empathy. Using emojis, such as the skull face (“I’m dead”) or crying face ( uncontrollable tears of laughter), can help to illustrate that range.

“It basically indicates that we have what we need to communicate a broad range of expression, or even very specific concepts,” Mr Robertson said. “You don’t necessarily need a Covid emoji.”

“We did see a rise in the use of the virus emoji. But it wasn’t made remotely into the most-commonly used ones because we still had plenty to laugh about and plenty to cry about, whether it was because of the pandemic or not,” said Lauren Gawne, a senior lecturer in linguistic at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia.

“Even in the midst of this massive global pandemic that preoccupied so much of our time,” She added. “We still spent a lot of time wishing each other happy birthday or checking or laughing about some new and unexpected elements of this slow-burning weirdness.”

3 . A project called “I Am A Scientist” is giving middle and high school students the opportunity to interact with modern-day researchers. Below are stories from some of the scientists who are involved in the program.

“I have a black belt in Taekwondo (跆拳道). I am driven by a deep desire to help others. I believe that all people have a fundamental right to health care.”

Her work: During the Zika epidemic, Al-Alusi met with the communities that had been hardest hit by the virus, using data and mathematical models to keep them safe and healthy.

Background: Al-Alusi was born in California but her parents emigrated from Iraq. This experience provided her with an understanding of the health needs of the immigrant community.

“I’m a huge sports fan. I’ve traveled to more than 40 countries. I’m a licensed scuba diver but a terrible swimmer. I hated science in high school.”

His work: Amamoto studies the tiny but amazing brains of animals that have a superpower — the ability to regenerate. He learns what factors help these special brains regrow, so that we can try to treat diseases like Parkinson’s.

Background: Amamoto lived in Japan until the age of eight, when his family moved to Chicago. He had to overcome major language barriers which saw him shift between speaking English at school and Japanese at home.

“I once competed in a robot competition. I love Beyonce. I love cooking. I’m a doctor who studies ways to improve women’s health.”

Her work: Connor is a doctor at a hospital in Boston where she studies cancer cells in a lab using microscopes and computers, but she also works directly with patients who are undergoing tests for new cancer treatments.

Background: Growing up in Florida, Connor was a serious kid who stressed about the little things. She was into her schoolwork and loved to put on plays with her friends in which she would organize the whole thing and assign everyone a role.

4 . Some people say that A. I. large language models can be unpredictable and unreliable — giving false information and acting strangely toward users. I’ve been using A.I. tools like ChatGPT almost daily for several months now, and I’ve seen them spit out plenty of wrong answers.     1     Here are three things that A.I. is especially good at.

Getting creatively unstuck

A. I. can also be a good tool for getting your creative juices flowing. Recently, I was trying to come up with questions to ask a podcast guest. I pasted the guest’s bio into ChatGPT and asked it to give me “10 thoughtful, incisive interview questions” for this person.     2    

Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, recommends using A.I. to overcome writer’s block, or get a running start on hard projects.

    3    

I’ve also been using ChatGPT and other A.I. apps as a kind of rehearsal for offline tasks I find unpleasant or hard.

When I had to have a difficult conversation with a friend, I asked ChatGPT to take part in a role-playing exercise. “Pretend you’re my friend, and react the way you think my friend might react,” I told it.     4     It didn’t make the real one painless, but I felt more confident knowing I’d already practised with a chatbot.

Of course, A.I. chatbots can’t replace human friendships. But they can be a kind of on-demand sounding board, offering us basic feedback and advice without judgement.

Sparking Notes for everything

    5     I’ve used A.I. programs to “read” long articles for me, and summarize dense academic papers. Usually they get the key points right, even if some of the details are missing. If you’re bored of reading this article, you could ask ChatGPT to summarize it for you. I promise I won’t be offended.

5 . This question has fascinated behavioural scientists for decades: why do we give money to charity?

The explanations for charitable giving fall into three broad categories, from the purely altruisic (利他的)— I donate because I value the social good done by the charity. The “impurely” altruistic— I donate because I extract value from knowing I contribute to the social good for the charity. And the not-at-all altruistic— I donate because I want to show off to potential mates how rich I am.

But are these motives strong enough to enable people to donate as much as they would want to? Most people support charities in one way or another, but often we struggle to make donations as often as we think we should. Although many people would like to leave a gift to charity in their will, they forget about it when the time comes.

Many people are also aware that they should donate to the causes that have the highest impact, but facts and figures are less attractive than narratives. In a series of experiments, it was found that people are much more responsive to charitable pleas that feature a single, identifiable beneficiary(受益者), than they are to statistical information about the scale of the problem being faced. When it comes to charitable giving, we are often ruled by our hearts and not our heads.

The good news is that charitable giving is contagious—seeing others give makes an individual more likely to give and gentle encouragement from an important person in your life can also make a big difference to your donation decisions— more than quadrupling them in our recent study. Habit also plays a part— in three recent experiments those who volunteered before were more likely to do donate their time than those who had not volunteered before.

In summary, behavioural science identifies a range of factors that influence our donations, and can help us to keep giving in the longer term. This is great news not just for charities, but also for donors.

6 . It is difficult to name a female architect more iconic than Zaha Hadid, whose name can be translated from Arabic as glorious. She passed away five years ago at the age of 65, but the impact she has left on the world of architecture is profound.

Hadid was born into an upper-class Iraqi family in 1950. At the very beginning, she wanted to become a mathematician and studied science at the American University of Beirut, But at some point she realized that she preferred shapes to numbers. And she turned her concentration to architecture and went to London where she met the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas.

“There are 360 degrees, so why stick to one?” Hadid once said. Despite her abundance of amazing ideas, before the beginning of the 90s, not a single building based on her blueprints had been built. Her highly expressive style, while initially criticized and believed to be crazy, is now regarded as pioneering work. Her striking contemporary architecture, inspired by natural landforms, has graced the skylines of major metropolitan cities.

“Women are always being told, ‘you’re not going to make it; It’s too difficult. You can’t do that Don’t enter this competition; You’ll never win it’,” Hadid said. “They need confidence in themselves and people around them for support.”

Never one to be boxed in by conventions, Hadid proved society wrong. She received her first prize, the “Gold Medal Architectural Design” for her British Architecture in 1982. From then on, the awards kept rolling in. But the true triumph for Hadid came in 2004. Her project for the London Olympics Aquatic Center won her the Pritzker Architecture Prize. She became the first woman and first Muslim to earn the award, making a name for herself and paving the way for female architects.

Hadid’s genius lives on in the array of many other spectacular buildings she has left behind in the world. Among them are the Guangzhou Opera House, the Beijing Daxing International Airport, as well as the Al Wakrah Stadium in Qatar where the 2022 FIFA World Cup will be held.

Hadid may be gone, but her global influence on a new generation of female architects is here to stay.

10 . 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.