1 . The summer holidays have just begun, but it is a busy morning at Cadoxton Primary School, in Barry, an industrial town in Wales. It runs a summer programme for hard-up (拮据的) children, providing meals and activities over the holidays with the aim of helping kids to spend the time more meaningfully. As young people run laughing and screaming into the school cafeteria for breakfast, their parents hung out, some visibly relieved. Just three days into the six-week school holidays one mother says her nine-year-old daughter has already asked five times to go bowling. “Without the school’s help,” she says, “it would be a long and expensive six weeks.”

In the popular imagination, school summer holidays conjure up (使……呈现于脑际) a picture of carefree youthful exploration. But many parents rely on the term-time services that schools give their kids, such as tutors and meals. If the holidays approach, they can suddenly find their schedules and budgets stretched. Researchers also say that the long break often sets back children’s learning, and that children from poorer backgrounds are desperately affected due to their shortage of money.

Many poor children fall behind their wealthier peers over the holidays. “Summer is the most unequal time of the year,” says Matthew Boulay of the National Summer Learning Association. “Well-off parents can fill the gap left by school and consolidate (使巩固) their children’s unfamiliar knowledge well, keeping their children stimulated with summer camps, trips abroad or private tutors. Poorer families, apparently, find this harder, since their income is relatively low and demand for sponsored activities offered by governments,” he adds.

Holidays can be a financial stress, which is absolutely true. In countries where some children receive free school meals, summer means bigger grocery bills for hard-up families. Households where both parents work have to pay for extra childcare, too. The Family and Childcare Trust, a charity, says that in Britain, where childcare costs are the highest in the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries. Parents will spend an average of 33 per child per week on childcare this summer, mainly because of the sharp shortage of governmental funding sponsor.

3 . Most parents are worried the first time they catch their kids out in a lie. According to child and teen psychiatrist Gayani DeSilva, lying can actually be a sign of healthy development in young children. “Kids lie for many reasons, and much of it is normal,” DeSilva says. “People are not born with the knowledge of communicating with others and getting their needs met. They’ll experiment with different communication styles and techniques until they find the ones that work best for them. Lying is one of those techniques.”

As kids get older, they become more aware of how their actions affect others, and many will lie less frequently. In spite of this, parents still need to lead their kids to form a habit of not lying. According to DeSilva, when children lie, look at them directly and ask what they need. After they tell you, gently remind them that telling you directly will be more effective than lying.

It’s also a good idea to model the behavior you want to see in your kids. In other words, don’t lie to your children. This will set you and your children on a course of open communication and trust.

In some cases, lying is a sign of a deeper issue. A child who is neglected will lie more than a child who has attentive and responsive parents. He’s not sure whether he’s loved. He may lie to please others. The same goes for a child who has experienced something unpleasant. He may lie to try to hide his shame, avoid admitting his needs, or to control his surroundings to ensure his safety.

By paying attention to the reasons behind a lie, parents can figure out what need to be done. For example, while Jack might lie about completing his homework in order to play video games, he also might be trying to avoid negative feelings connected with school work, and this is just where parents should start, says therapist Gideon Javna.

4 . Handing your baby a phone or a tablet to play with may seem like a harmless solution when you’re busy, but it could actually affect their development, a new study has found.

Having anywhere from one to four hours of screen time per day at age l is linked with higher risks of developmental delays in communication skills, fine motor skills, personal and social skills,and problem-solving skills by age 2, according to a study of 7,097 children published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics. The study measured how many hours children used screens per day at age 1 and how they performed in these developmental domains (领域) at ages 2 and 4. Both measures were according to the mothers’ self-reports.

By age 2, those who had had up to four hours of screen time per day were up to 3 times more likely to experience developmental delays in communication and problem-solving skills. Those who had spent four or more hours with screens were 4.78 times more likely to have underdeveloped communication skills,1.74 times more likely to have poor performances in fine motor skills and two times more likely to have underdeveloped personal and social skills by age2. By age 4, risk remained only in the communication and problem-solving categories.

“One of the areas that is relatively understudied in the whole screen time literature is looking at the impacts of screen exposure on very young kids, especially when screens are introduced to babies,” said Dr. John Hutton, an associate professor of general and community pediatrics (儿科) at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “It’s definitely a global concern, and I think the findings should really be applied to other countries as well.”

“Technology use can take time away from interpersonal relationships that develop social skills since real people are more multidimensional than characters on a screen.” Hutton added. Looking at people’s faces is when our brains turn on to figure out how to interact with them.

7 . Last weekend, I said goodbye to another dear old friend. We had 12 fine years together, but our relationship was becoming dysfunctional(不正常的). Unwanted emissions and serious health problems were the final straw, leaving me with no choice but to make a trip to the knacker’s(收废汽车者的)yard.

I am now car-free for the first time in 20 years, and it feels strange. When I gave up meat, I did so mainly for environmental reasons, and I didn’t miss it at all. I would like to say the same about my car, but I can’t. It was first and foremost a financial decision: keeping the old car on the road was getting too expensive.

But doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing — I now have a chance to rethink how I move myself and my family around, and can try to find a more environmentally friendly means of transport.

Going car-free is, I think, a lifestyle change that many of us are going to make over the next few years, as car ownership becomes increasingly unnecessary, expensive and socially unacceptable. However, it is easier said than done. Now my car is gone. I still need to get around. But how? I already cycle to work and use public transport when appropriate. But there are some occasions when a car seems to be the only way.

I won’t buy one: I have joined a car-share program and will use taxis more often. I will hire a car if I need to drive a long distance. But then I am still travelling in fossil-fuelled cars(燃油汽车), like when I quit meat and ended up eating more cheese. I fear I may have swapped one environmental problem for another.

I am also afraid to think about the ultimate fate of my car. I have just offloaded more than a ton of metal, plastic, rubber, fabric, electronics, oil and petrol that will end up in a landfill. There are millions of similar vehicles in the UK alone that will have to go somewhere.

Maybe I am overthinking it. According to Charlie Wilson, a climate scientist at the UK’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, getting rid of a private car is no doubt a positive step to reduce CO₂ emissions.

He points to research by the OECD’s International Transport Forum. “They showed that moving from a private vehicle fleet(车队)to a shared vehicle fleet can greatly cut the number of vehicles you need to deliver the mobility that we need and want. If that vehicle fleet is electrified, you can also bring CO₂ emissions close to zero.”

So in other words, just get rid of your car.

9 . If having to make a choice between reading an e-book and a printed book, which would most people choose? Some would go for an e-book while some still prefer the hard-printed book.

Undoubtedly, e-books do have benefits. Firstly, changes to an electronic publication are relatively easy to make. They are quicker to obtain. E-books are more easily updated. The printed books on many subjects can become outdated very quickly. Secondly, e-books can be easily and quickly kept up to date. You usually get far more than just the e-books. Most e-books are sold with bonuses and related information that usually do not come with the purchase of a printed book. Moreover, they take up less space. Instead of a big library, you can fit literally thousands of books on your computer. It also makes it easier to share this information with families and friends.

For nearly twenty years, additionally, futurists have been predicting the development of printed books. The conventional view has been that digital e-books are on the verge of replacing paper books. However, this has not been the case. A printed book has its advantages too. Firstly, it is an object that can be carried and used alone. It needs no electric outlet (插座), no batteries, nothing. Secondly, e-books will always require some forms of support that the printed book does not need.

I believe that the online publishing has not taken off because people want real books. What is being published online more and more are pamphlets (小册子) and things that really do not need to be in print. These are stuff that people throw away afterward. More often, people do not want to read a book on the computer. What could be better than a paper book? It lasts a long time. These books are designed to last a long time without disappearing.

To sum up, there is no denying that the printed book is still very much preferred over its digital cousins. Reading electronic publications is just not the same when it comes to books. People are still very interested in real books and notebooks.

10 . If you're a runner who secretly hates running, here's some good news: settling into a leisurely jog rather than an all-out run may actually be better for your health in the long term.

A team from Denmark followed over 5,000 people taking part in the Copenhagen City Heart Study, and tracked whether they were non-joggers or joggers who kept a slow, moderate, or fast pace. The participants' health was tracked over the next 12 years, and so was their mortality (死亡率): 28 of the joggers and 128 of the non-joggers died.

The connection was this: Joggers of mild and moderate intensity had a lower risk of death than the fast joggers. In fact, the lowest mortality risk was that of the mild intensity joggers. The fast-paced joggers had about the same mortality rate as sedentary (久坐的) people. This suggests that there may be an upper limit to hard exercise, after which the benefits fall off.

"The U-shaped association between jogging and mortality suggests there may be an upper limit for exercise amount that is best for health benefits," said study author Peter Schnohr. "Anything more is not just unnecessary: it may be harmful." From the current study, jogging just three times per week, for less than 2.5 hours/week was associated with the lowest overall mortality risk.

There've been a lot of mixed messages about the "right" amount of exercise and what intensity is best. The World Health Organization has suggested that the current 150 minutes/week recommendations are strenuous for most people to tackle, and that expectations should be lowered, since, after all, anything is better than nothing. Everyone probably has a level of activity that feels best to him or her. But at least the growing consensus seems to be that more-if you're pushing yourself very hard-is not necessarily better. And it may even be worse.