1 . Nowadays, the world is slowly becoming a high-tech society and we are now surrounded by technology. Facebook and Twitter are innovative tools; text messaging is still a somewhat existing phenomenon and even e-mail is only a flashing spot on the screen when compared with our long history of snail mail. Now we adopt these tools to the point of essentialness, and only rarely consider how we are more fundamentally affected by them.

Social media, texting and e-mail all make it much easier to communicate, gather and pass information, but they also present some dangers. By removing any real human engagement, they enable us to develop our abnormal self-love without the risk of disapproval or criticism. To use a theatrical metaphor (隐喻), these new forms of communication provide a stage on which we can each create our own characters, hidden behind a fourth wall of tweets, status updates and texts. This unreal state of unconcern can become addictive as we separate ourselves a safe distance from the cruelty of our fleshly lives, where we are imperfect, powerless and insignificant. In essence, we have been provided not only the means to be more free, but also to become new, to create and project a more perfect self to the world. As we become more reliant on these tools, they become more a part of our daily routine, and so we become more restricted in this fantasy.

So it is that we live in a cold era, where names and faces represent two different levels of closeness, where working relationships occur only through the magic of email and where love can start or end by text message. An environment such as this reduces interpersonal relationships to mere digital exchanges.

Would a celebrity have been so daring to do something dishonorable if he had had to do it in person? Doubtful. It seems he might have been lost in a fantasy world that ultimately convinced himself into believing the digital self could obey different rules and regulations, as if he could continually push the limits of what’s acceptable without facing the consequences of “real life.”

5 . It is rapidly emerging as one of the most important technological, and increasingly ideological, divides of our times: should powerful generative artificial intelligence systems be open or closed?

Supporters say they broaden access to the technology, stimulate innovation and improve reliability by encouraging outside scrutiny. Far cheaper to develop and deploy, smaller open models also inject competition into a field dominated by big US companies such as Google. Microsoft and OpenAI that have invested billions developing massive, closed and closely controlled generative Al systems.

But detractors argue open models risk lifting the lid on a Pandora’s box of troubles. Bad actors can exploit them to spread personalised disinformation, while terrorists might use them to manufacture cyber or bio weapons. “The danger of open source is that it enables more crazies to do crazy things, “Geoffrey Hinton, one of the pioneers of modern AI, has warned.

The history of OpenAI, which developed the popular ChatGPT chatbot, is itself instructive. As its name suggests, the research company was founded in 2015 with a commitment to develop the technology as openly as possible. But it later abandoned that approach for both competitive and safety reasons. Once OpenAI realised that its generative AI models were going to be “unbelievably potent”, it made little sense to open source them, Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist said.

Supporters of open models hit back, ridiculing the idea that open generative AI models enable people to access information they could not otherwise find from the internet or a rogue scientist. They also highlight the competitive self-interest of the big tech companies in shouting about the dangers of open models, whose intention is to establish their own market dominance strongly.

But there is an ideological dimension to this debate, too. Yann LeCun, chief scientist of Meta, has likened the arguments for controlling the technology to medieval obscurantism (蒙昧主义): the belief that only a self-selecting priesthood of experts is wise enough to handle knowledge.

In the future, all our interactions with the vast digital repository of human knowledge will be mediated through Al systems. We should not want a handful of Silicon Valley companies to control that access. Just as the internet flourished by resisting attempts to enclose it, so AI will thrive by remaining open, LeCun argues.

Wendy Hall, royal professor of computer science at Southampton university, says we do not want to live in a world where only the big companies run generative Al. Nor do we want to allow users to do anything they like with open models. “We have to find some compromise,” she suggests.

We should certainly resist the tyranny (暴政) of the binary (二进制) when it comes to thinking about AI models. Both open and closed models have their benefits and flaws. As the capabilities of these models evolve, we will constantly have to tweak the weightings between competition and control.

6 . EVs are in the middle of an obesity epidemic

Fisker, an electric vehicle, unveiled the future line-up on August 3rd. It included: a souped-up, off-road version of the Ocean. Though Fisker says sustainability is one of its founding principles, it is indulging in a trait almost universal among car firms: building bigger, stronger cars, even when they are electric.

There are two reasons for this. The first is profit. As with conventional cars, bigger EVs generate higher margins. The second is consumer preference. For decades, drivers have been opting for SUVs and pickup trucks rather than smaller cars, and this now applies to battery-charged ones. EV drivers, who worry about the availability of charging infrastructure, want more range, hence bigger batteries. That may help make for a more reassuring ride. But eventually the supersizing trend will prove to be unsustainable and unsafe.

For now, carmakers can argue that however big the electric rigs, they have a positive impact on the planet. Though manufacturing EVs—including sourcing the metals and minerals that go into them—generates more greenhouse gases than a conventional car, they quickly compensate for that through the absence of tallpipe emissions.

But in the long run the trend for bigger butteries may backfire, for economic and environmental reasons. First, the bigger the battery, the more pressure there will be on the supply chain. If battery sizes increase there are likely to be looming seareitles of lithium and nickel. That will push up the cost of lithium-ion batteries, undermining carmakers’ profitability. Second, to charge bigger batteries in a carbon-neutral way requires more low-carbon electricity. That may create bottlenecks on the grid. Third, the more pressure on scarce resources vital for EV production, the harder it will be to make affordable electric cars critical for electrifying the mass market. That will slow the overall decarbonisation of transport. Finally, there is safety. Not only is a battle tank that does zero to 100 kilometres per hour in the blink of an eye a liability for anyone that happens to be in its way.

Governments have ways to encourage EVs to shrink. The most important is to support the expansion of charging infrastructure, which would reduce range anxiety and promote smaller cars. Taxes could punish heavier vehicles and subsidies could promote lighter ones.

Ultimately, the industry is almost sure to realise the folly of pursuing size for its own sake. The penny is starting to drop. Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, recently said carmakers could not make money with the longest-range batteries. His opposite number at General Motors, Mary Barra, has taken the unexpected step of reversing a plan to retire the affordable Chevy Bolt EV. In Europe, carmakers like Volkswagen are building smaller, cheaper EVs. Tesla is said to be planning a compact model made in Mexico.

7 . French parenting isn’t perfect, but there’s a lot we can learn from this kind but no-nonsense style of parenting.

French children are allowed to handle difficult things themselves.     1     The early years are when they discover all the cool ways their new body works and how to use it. To encourage this autonomy, French parents treat children more like adults-in-training than helpless babies. They believe kids feel confident when they’re able to deal with things on their own.

Fearful of hurting feelings, American parents tend to praise every child for everything.     2     However, all that praise eventually turns out to be pointless. By contrast, French adults give children appropriate praise, thus allowing them to feel a true sense of achievement and take pride in what they learn.

Painful experiences are the best learning opportunities and sheltering children from this fact of life will merely delay their emotional development. French doctors never say “sorry” when giving kids shots. The French believe undergoing hurts, is part of life and that there’s no reason to apologize for that.     3    

Plus, the expectation of eye contact and a polite hello starts from the minute French children can say hello. They know saying “hello” and good manners are non-negotiable. Teaching them about that will benefit them for a lifetime.     4     Be patient with little ones as they learn.

All the above feels easier said than done, especially as a tired parent facing an intolerable child.     5     Your efforts will end up with children’s better behaviour overall.

It’s 5 p.m., and you’ve just realized that report you’ve been putting off is due tomorrow. It’s time to buckle down and open your computer. Actually, you should probably make dinner first. You usually like cooking, though it’s hard to enjoy with this work hanging over your head, and oh—it’s actually pretty late! Maybe you should just try again in the morning. This is the cycle of procrastination, and I promise you, we have all been there.

Procrastination is when we avoid a task we said we would do, for no good reason, despite expecting our behavior to bring negative consequences. Obviously, it’s irrational to do something you expect to harm you. But ironically, procrastination is the result of our bodies trying to protect us, specifically by avoiding a task we see as threatening.

We’re most likely to procrastinate tasks that evoke negative feelings, such as dread, incompetence, and insecurity. Because procrastination is motivated by our negative feelings, some individuals are more susceptible (易受影响的) to it than others. People who have difficulty regulating their emotions and those who struggle with low self-esteem are much more likely to procrastinate. However, it’s a common misconception that all procrastinators are lazy. When you’re feeling lazy, you’re more likely to sit around doing nothing than distract yourself with unimportant tasks. In fact, many people procrastinate because they care too much. Procrastinators often report a high fear of failure, putting things off because they’re afraid their work won’t live up to their high standards.

Whatever the reason for procrastination, the results are often the same. Procrastinators are likely to suffer from anxiety and depression, ongoing feelings of shame and physical ailments (轻病) associated with high stress.

So, how can we break the cycle of procrastination?

Traditionally, people thought procrastinators needed to cultivate discipline and practice strict time management. But today, many researchers feel the exact opposite. Being too hard on yourself can layer additional bad emotions onto a task. What we really need to do is to address and reduce these negative emotions.