2 . Children seem to care so much about their names. A study shows that most of young people wish their parents had given them a different name.

Some people choose to change their names when they grow up. Many people in show business don’t use the names their parents gave them. Have you ever listened to Joanne? No? The answer could be “yes” if we call her stage name instead! You may never heard of Margaret. But if we tell you her stage name, you might know her as a famous dancer.

In many cultures, there are special ideas about how to choose a name. For example, many people choose a name that has been in their family for many years. It tells the child where he or she comes from.

Choosing a good name isn’t easy. Many parents search books that tell them the meanings of names. They could choose a name that carries a message. For example, Edith means “valuable gift”. Amanda means “love”. And Fara means “joy”.

Names like these tell family and friends how happy they are with their new baby. Other names can say something about the events during the birth of the child. In Africa, a first born son may have the name Mosi and the name Ama means “born on Saturday”.

Is every boy called Curitis polite? And is every girl called Mahira quick and full of energy? No parents can tell what kind of person their child will grow up to be. Just because parents name a boy Fahim, it doesn’t mean he will be clever. All they can do is hope.

4 . Several studies in recent years have suggested that ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft can worsen traffic problems in cities, which continue to have high rates of private vehicle ownership.

Recently, a new study has found that ride-sharing services result in much more pollution than other kinds of private and public transportation. Ride-sharing trips also draw passengers away from more environment-friendly methods of travel, like public transportation, walking or biking, the study found.

The new study, carried out by the not-for-profit group Union of Concerned Scientists, represents an attempt to center on how ride-sharing services affect pollution. The research examined the effects of ride-sharing services on seven of America’s largest cities.

Overall, the researchers reported that ride-sharing trips now “result in an estimated 69 percent more climate pollution on average than the trips they displace.” The study notes that the same passengers could have chosen to travel by bus, train, bike, scooter or on foot.

One of the big reasons they give for this result is that ride-sharing vehicles are often driven with no passengers in the car. This happens when drivers are either waiting for rider requests, are on the way to pick up passengers or are driving in between pickups. This situation, known as “deadheading”, takes up about 42 percent of all ride-sharing driving activity, the study found. The researchers said that deadheading results in about 50 percent more carbon dioxide than one person driving in a private vehicle. Both Uber and Lyft do offer a choice of a “pooled” ride, which involves drivers picking up additional riders during the same trip.

The study urges services like Uber and Lyft to work to increase the number of pooled rides. It also urges the two companies to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road and to improve connections to public transportation centers.

Both Uber and Lyft have said in the past that most studies on the subject overstate the effects of their services on pollution. They have noted that the majority of vehicles on the road belong to private individuals or companies. Uber told Reuters news agency in a statement it had no comment on the latest report. But the company said it aims to be part of the solution to address climate change by working directly with cities. The statement added that Uber would continue to promote pooled trips and other means of transportation.

5 . Since App Store was set up, it has been selling consumers one simple thing: choice. Whether you wanted to play games, read the news, or do a thousand other things, there was something for whatever you desired.

Then something funny happened. Logging into the App Store today is like going into a shopping mall with only a coupon (优惠券) for one thing: There’s so much choice; it might be easier to give up than to choose.

It isn’t just consumers who are burdened, though. Too much content of all kinds also has economic effects. When countless choices are available, it causes pressure, pushing prices down and driving us a bit crazy.

So what is the way forward? Less choice itself may be a sensible strategy. There are already signs that this is happening. Firstly content companies are looking to prevent their offerings from getting lost in the tons of stuff. Most obvious is Disney, which is planning to open its own streaming service next year. The point is to narrow the focus so that those seeking Disney cartoons will have one place to go, rather than being around various services.

Yet if that represents a careful first step, there are more extreme options too. Consider the idea of a wine club: from tens of thousands of bottles each year, subscribers pay someone to select the most interesting ones. Perhaps what comes next for digital content is similar — carefully selected offerings from trusted sources that put choices in the hands of customers in order to get rid of the anxiety of choosing.

Up to now, too much choice in digital media has only one solution: the algorithm (运算法则). But we’ve seen the trouble with algorithms on You Tube. They feed you only what you’ve already said you like, not things you may not know you’re into. Worse, they have a tendency to serve up disturbing content. The way forward can’t simply be more or better algorithms.

Instead, it’s time for digital companies to start thinking about how to put limits on things: on how much we can use a device, or what we are available to choose from. As we move further into the digital revolution, what people ask for is clear: Less.

7 . Children’s lives have changed greatly over the last 50 years. But do they have a happier childhood than you or I did?

It’s difficult to look back on one’s own childhood without feeling nostalgic(怀旧的). I have four brothers and sisters, and my memories are all about being with them, playing board games on the living room floor, or spending days in the street with the other neighbourhood children, or racing up and down on our bikes. My parents hardly appear in these memories, except as providers of meals.

These days, in the UK at least, the nature of childhood has changed greatly. Firstly, families are smaller, and there are far more only children. It is common for both parents to work outside the home and there is the feeling that there just isn’t time to bring up a large family, or that no one could possibly afford to have more than one child. As a result, today’s boys and girls spend much of their time alone. Another major change is that youngsters today prefer to spend most of their free time at home, inside. More than anything this is because of the fact that parents worry far more than they used to about real or imagined dangers, so they wouldn’t dream of letting their children play outside by themselves.

Finally, the kind of toys children have and the way they play is totally different. Computer and video games have replaced(取代) the board games and more active pastimes of my childhood. The irony(讽刺) is that so many of these games are called “interactive(互动的)”. The fact that you can play computer games on your own further increases the sense of loneliness felt by many young people today.

Do these changes mean that children today have a less pleasant childhood than I had? I personally believe that they do, but perhaps every generation(一代人) feels exactly the same.

10 . “Snowplow (扫雪机) parenting” is the newest parenting style that can include parents booking their adult children haircuts, calling their college kids to wake them up so that they don’t sleep through a test, and even calling their kids’ employers.

“‘Helicopter (直升机) parenting’ means monitoring their kids’ every activity, which is out of date.” Claire Cain Miller and Jonah Engel Bromwich wrote in The New York Times. “Some rich mothers and fathers now are more like snowplows: clearing any problems in their children’s path to success so that they don’t have to meet failure or lose opportunities.”

There is a mother who started a charity (慈善机构) in her son’s name to try to raise his chances of being accepted to the college. Another parents spent years helping their daughter avoid foods with sauce, which she didn’t like. Once she got to college, she had problems with the food in her school because it was all covered in sauce.

A survey says that three-quarters of parents of children between the ages of 18 and 28 ask for doctor visits or haircuts for their children, and 11% say they would call their kids’ bosses whether their children are having an issue at work.

As reported, wealthy parents try to get their children into top colleges by giving a large amount of money to a school, such as paying for a building. This parenting has become the most popular way to raise children, whatever the income, education, or race is.

Julie, a teacher at Stanford, told the Times that “snowplow parenting” is not a reasonable approach. “The parents should prepare the kid for the road, instead of preparing the road for the kid,” she said.