1 . 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.

3 . The needs of plus size consumers have long been the elephant in the room of the fashion industry until body positivity and fat acceptance movements promoted the slogan (口号) that large-bodied people are not those who are left behind. This size-inclusive (尺码包容) trend has become so popular that it is influencing mainstream culture. As a result, fashion brands have finally decided to extend their size ranges. In 2022, the plus-size market grew twice as fast as the standard size market in both North America and the UK.

Yet, many consumers say fashion brands broadening their ranges are not truly inclusive. “Inclusive sizing means that all bodies are included in fashion, not just the ones who fit in standard sizes,” says Marie Southard Ospina, a UK-based journalist who covers body-image issues. “However, what many designers do right now is pick a number that they think is big enough to include plus sizes and stop. This is even more disrespectful.”

Researchers also criticize that some brands are just taking advantage of the trend. “Brands that used to promote so-called perfect bodies in their advertisements are now trying to get in on the trend by adding a few sizes. It doesn’t feel like they really care about plus-size people,” says Tom Burgess, analyst in fashion industry. “If brands cared about large-bodied consumers, then it wouldn’t have taken until now to acknowledge that they exist,” he says. “It gives the impression that companies are just trying to gain a share of the market without a real commitment to the community.”

The fashion industry must go beyond merely producing clothing in a range of sizes if they hope to succeed with a body -diverse world. The whole industry has to connect on a personal level with consumers. That involves showing shoppers that they are seen, understood and important to brands. “Consumers care about values, and so they want to buy from brands that reflect the values they believe in. Everyone should enjoy the same range of fashion options,” says Ludovica Cesareo, professor of marketing at the College of Business in the US.

4 . After Alexander Pushkin was shot in a duel (决斗) in 1837, crowds of mourners formed in Saint Petersburg. When the wagon carrying the much loved poet’s body reached Pskov province, where he was to be buried, admirers tried to pull the vehicle themselves.

Today’s celebrity funerals tend to involve the public largely digitally rather than in person. But people are passionate all the same. In the past few months, grief has coursed around the Internet for Milan Kundera, and most recently, Michael Gambon. If you stop to think about it, such expressions of strong feelings for writers and actors are odd, even irrational.

Unlike other kinds of grief, this one is not rooted in personal intimacy (亲密关系). If you ever interacted with a cherished author, it was probably during a book tour when she signed your copy of her novel. Maybe you once locked eyes with a musician during a live concert and he smiled at you, but actually he did not even know you.

Objectively, sorrow makes sense when a star dies young or violently. Had she not died at 27, who knows what music Amy Winehouse would have added to her already impressive collections of work? The death of a long-lived and fulfilled artist, however, is far from the saddest item in an average day’s headlines. And while most ordinary people sink into oblivion, these celebrities live on in their output. Why, then, are these losses felt so widely and keenly?

One interpretation is that departed celebrities are merely the messengers. Part of your past —the years in which the musician was the soundtrack, the writer your ally (盟友) — can seem to fade away with them. The grief can be seen as a form of gratitude for the harmony and joy they supplied.

More importantly, the passing of an artist is an occasion for exchanges of ideas. In an atomized age, in which the default (默认) tone is critical, a beloved figure’s death is a chance to share positive feelings and memories with fellow admirers. These sad occasions are the parting gifts of these artists.

7 . People tend to cut corners and allow trusted workmates to do their work when working as a team. Now researchers have found that the same thing happens when humans work with robots.

Dietlind Cymek at the Technical University of Berlin in Germany and her colleagues designed an experiment to test whether humans would put in less effort when they think that their personal contribution to a task won’t be noticed.

In the experiment, the researchers asked a group of 42 people to examine images of circuit boards (电路板) for errors using a computer that tracked their work. Half of them looked at boards that had already been checked by a robot, and half were told that they were the only ones responsible for quality control.

People working in partnership with the robot caught fewer errors, after they had already seen that the robot had successfully flagged lots of errors.

The researchers say such teamwork could lead to a drop in motivation if individual effort isn’t visible and warn that there could be safety risks if teams of people and robots work on safety-related tasks in the same way.

Kathleen Richardson at De Montfort University in Leicester, UK, says it is fine to use robots as long as they are effective, but that they should be considered tools rather than workmates or team members. “It just strikes me that workers think when a tool can do something, they let it,” says Richardson.

This is probably down to poor management style, in which individual work isn’t recognised. “I bet you if there was an motivation behind it, and if the humans could get extra pay for spotting errors in the circuit boards, then they’d put a bit more effort into it,” she adds.

9 . The Global Food Donation Policy Atlas has issued a recent report in order to recommend ways to increase food donations, reduce food waste, and fight hunger, which may help Kenyan leaders meet 2030 food waste reduction goals.

Food donation can reroute eatable food—that would otherwise give off greenhouse gasses in a landfill—to those experiencing hunger. According to the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, 3.5 million Kenyans, roughly 37 percent of the population, face severe hunger. At the same time, the Policy Atlas reports roughly 40 percent of food produced within Kenya goes to waste. But Broad Leib, Deputy Director of Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC), sees some promising changes. “While progress is not happening as quickly as needed, Kenya’s food loss index has been steadily reduced from 1,744 metric tons in 2017, to 1,531 in 2018, to 1,446 metric tons in 2019, indicating a steady improvement and national commitment to food loss reduction,” reports Broad Leib.

According to the Policy Atlas, motivating food donation with rewards is particularly important, which helps food donors and food recovery organizations make up for costs necessary for recovery, storing, processing, and transporting food for donation.

“A major driver of food waste is inconsistent or unclear date labels that cause confusion among all actors along the value chain and limit the ability of businesses to donate food. This increases the likelihood that much safe food will go to waste,” Broad Leib tells Food Tank. However, he acknowledges Kenya’s current dual (双的) date labeling laws. While food may lose its freshness over time, it is still eatable before expiration (到期). Dual date labeling on packaged foods reduces bewilderment by defining dates for both safety and quality. This helps reduce considerable waste and responsibility for donors.

Broad Leib believes that the private sector can also play a significant role in decreasing food waste in Kenya. It is vital for consumer education campaigns. FLPC’s research shows that public-private initiatives can help raise awareness among consumers and donors around issues of food waste and food donation.

10 . According to a new study from Oxford Economics, a rise in artificial intelligence will result in an increase in “income inequality” as they estimate that 20 million manufacturing jobs will be lost in the next 11 years. In China alone, there could be 14 million robots taking work currently done by humans by 2030. While in the United States, more than 1.5 million workers would have lost their employment to technology by 2030.

The report predicts the use of robots worldwide has increased to 2.25 million over the past two decades. The researchers said, “As a result of robotisation, tens of millions of jobs will be lost, especially in poorer economies that rely on lower-skilled workers, which will therefore translate into an increase in income inequality.”

However, the researchers noted how “robotisation” has the potential to boost productivity and economic growth. They predicted a 5.3 percent rise in global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030.The report said, “This means adding an extra $4.9 trillion per year to the global economy by 2030(in today’s prices).”

The report remained positive about the use of automation and urged lawmakers not to sand in the way of robots in the workplace, despite the threat of job losses.

The researchers said, “These findings should not lead policy-makers to seek to prevent the adoption of robot technology. Instead, the challenge should be to distribute the robot profits more evenly by helping workers prepare for and adapt to the big changes it will bring about. Explore all policy options from training, initiatives (新方案) and new welfare programs such as universal basic income.”