1 . About ten years ago, logging into Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram would mostly show posts from friends and family in the order they were posted. Today, these platforms present a mix of content, tailored by algorithms (算法) to match users’ interests, whether it’s plants, sports, cats, or politics.

Kyle Chayka, a writer for The New Yorker, discusses this topic in his book, Filterworld. He explains that algorithms analyze user data to predict and influence what they will likely engage with. This means that instead of a simple, chronological feed, users encounter a dynamic stream, constantly adapting to their preferences. Chayka examines how these algorithmic recommendations control what we consume, from music and movies to food and travel destinations. He argues that this machine-driven selection process has turned us into passive consumers, making our preferences and tastes more similar.

Chayka points out that algorithms make us passive by always showing us content that we’re unlikely to click away from but won’t find too unexpected or challenging. This constant stream of recommendations reduces our exposure to diverse or challenging content, subtly shaping our preferences and behaviors.

Moreover, Chayka points out that algorithms also pressure content creators, like musicians and artists, to tailor their work to fit these digital platforms. For instance, musicians on Spotify or TikTok might focus on creating catchy hooks at the beginning of their songs to grab the listener’s attention.

Despite the strong presence of these algorithms, Chayka believes that regulation could reduce their influence. He suggests that if Meta, the parent company of Facebook, were required to separate its various services, like Instagram or WhatsApp, and make them compete with each other, it could give users more control and choice over their digital consumption.

In summary, the change from simple, time-ordered social. media posts to algorithm-driven content has a big impact on both the viewers and the creators, influencing what we see, hear, and even think. Chayka’s insights highlight the need for greater awareness and potentially more regulation in our increasingly digital world.

2 . Catfish effect is the effect that a strong competitor has in causing the weak to better themselves. Actions done to actively apply this effect in an organization are termed catfish management.

In Norway, live sardines are several times more expensive than frozen ones, and are valued for better texture and flavor. It was said that only one ship could bring live sardines home, and the shipmaster kept his method a secret. After he died, people found that there was one catfish in the tank. The catfish keeps swimming, and the sardines try to avoid this predator (捕食者). This increased level of activity keeps the sardines active, thus, increasing their survival rate greatly.

Catfish effect has been one of the hottest topics in human resources management. Therefore, I will keep the explanation short and sweet. When an outsider joins a well-established team as a competitor, he causes the weak to better their performance. This method is meant to motivate each of the teammates to feel the competition in order to keep up the competitiveness level of the whole team.

However, adding a catfish in the team can also bring in the downside in the group’s dynamics.

The team would go back to the storming stage. Under-performers would become more negative about the change that the catfish tried to implement (实施) because they would see it as a threat. The failed attempt of implementation of changing will create under-performance in the team as a whole, which will lead to a greater management challenge.

The key employee or backbone employee will feel demotivated because the opportunity to get a more senior job has decreased. If there are too many catfish in the company, this would generate a stressful work environment. The employee would constantly worry if they are being “preyed” by the catfish. The mental burden would create a harmful corporate culture and increase the distrust between employees.

A high standard is required on the catfish. The catfish would eventually turn into a leading role in the team. Lack in leadership skill from the catfish would lead to a bigger chaos in the workplace. Worst situation would be setting up a bad leadership role model to further an unhealthy competitive environment.

4 . Today, being freelancers (自由职业者) is one of the most powerful trends in the way we work. According to a current study, there are 70.4 million freelancers in the US. By 2028, this number will increase to 90.1 million, or54% of the workforce, basically divided equally between genders.

It would appear to be solid guidance in today’s modern workforce to tell some one who wants the “3Fs”— flexibility, fulfillment, and financial independence — to “just go freelance”, right? The large numbers and data support this direction and suggest that it could be regarded as safe and wise advice.

However, telling someone who is unhappy in their current professional situation to “just go freelance”, is like telling them to climb Mt Qomolangma without oxygen: 5% of climbers have succeeded, so it can be done, but there will be hardship and a much higher chance of failure. Just as one should weigh the risks of attempting to climb the 8848.86m mountain without essential supplies, the idea of being freelancers must be truly understood.

The number is increasingly growing, however, actually three quarters of self-described freelancers in the USare part-time, meaning the vast majority are using freelance work as a side hustle (副业). What’s more, research shows that 70% of full-time freelancers participated in upskilling training. Besides, more than half (58%) of freelancers have experienced non-payment from clients, and most do not have retirement plans or affordable health insurance. Many freelancers fail after the first year as a result of making avoidable mistakes with only a third making it.

We can’t simply tell people to “just go freelance” unless we also tell them to invest in training and cooperate with like-minded, supportive communities to strengthen industry rights before they start their journey to the summit as an individual, but never alone.

In one club in Beijing, for example, players enter into a fictional martial arts school     1     they wear costumes and assume roles like a peach fairy or a dragon. The script offers character backgrounds, relationships and potential storylines. The plot develops as the players go around the table, talking in character, taking clues from the script and the host. In the end, they vote on     2     they think the murderer might be.

The whodunits may be imaginary,     3     they provide a real-world alternative for young Chinese people who spend increasing amounts of time on their screens. The country’s one billion Internet users spend much of their time on their phones,     4     (cause) worries from the public and the government alike about too much screen time. The government’s concerns over children in particular     5     (lead) it to restrict video game time for minors recently.

The games also provide free-flowing opportunities for young people to get together, something     6     can be rare in China, according to Kecheng Fang, an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. The games provide “    7     participatory experience and a way of socializing, which is     8     (miss) from the life of many Chinese young people,” Dr. Fang said. They are     9     (lack) in participation in civic affairs, community     10     (engage) and meaningful socialization.

7 . It was something rather irregular at an otherwise regular board of appeals meeting in Maine. A resident wanted a permission for not observing the no-chicken rule. But this wasn’t just any resident. It was C-Jay Martin, 25, who is blind and has epilepsy (癫痫) and autism. Chickens are what brought C-Jay joy despite his challenges. “Having something to share with other people was important to him,” said his mother, Amy Martin.

But Bangor is not OK with chickens. In fact, city rules clearly prohibit residents from keeping “fowl, goats, sheep, cattle or swine of any kind” and the municipal government urges the residents to obey the rules strictly. So, would the staid New England city of 31,000 make an exception for C-Jay and his emotional support hens?

It was with high hopes that Martin headed to the otherwise ordinary municipal meeting earlier this month. She told the appeals board she got the chickens in April after researching the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing by landlords or municipalities, and finding it might allow her son an accommodation.

She was joined by neighbors and community members who showed up to support C-Jay and his chickens. One noted C-Jay regularly assumes the responsibility of feeding the chickens, despite his disabilities. Another said their cooing and soft noises are clearly a comfort to C-Jay. Others said Martin and C-Jay keep the chickens’ area in their yard very clean.

But there were some complaints. Some raised concerns about whether the presence of the chickens could attract rodents (齿类动物), and didn’t want an exception for C-Jay to open the door for others to keep banned animals.

City officials, seeming to side with C-Jay and his flock, assured attendees that no increased rodent activity would not be tolerated and any livestock permission would only apply to C-Jay Martin at his house.

In the end, it reached a consensus: the appeals board ruled that C-Jay had a need for the chickens. He would be allowed to keep them, although limits on the number were set, and noisy roosters prohibited.

Martin said her son is relieved and that his beloved chickens will stay. “When he’s sitting outside listening to an audiobook, or just hanging out in the backyard with the sun shining, he always knows where they are because he can hear them,” she said. “He’s never really alone.”

8 . If your next meeting can’t be an email, maybe it can just be 15 minutes. The 15-minute meeting is the fastest-growing block of time that workers and bosses are planning, according to an analysis of Microsoft Teams data, which also shows people are booking fewer hour-long meetings. Fifteen-minute meetings now make up 60 percent of gatherings, proving that executives and employees alike have grown stricter about their time.

Thirty minutes tends to be the common time for many meetings. Jayne Sandman, who runs a Washington, D.C., branding-and-marketing firm, generally gives people a tight 15. “The death of your day is too many ‘half-hours’,” she says. Sandman starts calls with something warm and exciting, such as “I can’t wait to hear about your weekend later!” Then she quickly turns to business, noting there are only 15 minutes on the docket (议程).

Over three-fourths of employees say shorter meetings are more efficient, according to a new poll of more than 2,000 U.S. workers conducted in September by market-research firm Civicscience. One-third of respondents said they stop paying attention after 15 minutes anyway. For an employee who makes $100 an hour, cutting down 4 of their meetings by 15 minutes is a $100 savings. Shorter meetings can also help employees work less hours. Companies that have gone to a four-day workweek say banishing meetings that serve mostly as progress reports is the first step to increase efficient hours out of the day.

Rahim Charania, managing partner of a real-estate investment firm, says the 15-minute block is the standard time, and meetings rarely run over. “It forces everyone to do the majority of their thinking before the meeting.”

9 . There are few clear rules in the UK saying drivers should not park on the pavement (人行道). But Scotland, a country of Britain, is planning a complete ban on pavement paking. And, earlier this year, the UK government admitted it was considering changing the law for the other parts of Britain.

Joe Irvin of Living Streets (the UK charity for everyday walking) says there is “no excuse” for the disagreement and has called on the UK government to act the same way.

“Pavement parking is really thoughtless—and if you think about people with wheelchairs, pushchairs, or sight impairment (受损), they have to go out on to the road,” says Mr Irvin.

Steve Hynd, from Bristol, said his father, who uses a wheelchair, had recently ended up in hospital after a parked car had blocked his path.

“My dad’s experience was near his care home,” he says. “He was trying to wheel himself back inside and a car had parked up on the pavement. He tried to get around it and fell out of his wheelchair.”

“He went to hospital. He’d hurt his head and got a black eye where his glasses had gone in.”

Groups such as the AA and RAC admit “some streets” should not allow pavement parking if it causes problems to emergency vehicles (紧急车辆) — but they do not believe in a complete ban across the country.

AA president Edmund King says, “We would be concerned if there was a total ban. It is clearly possible in some areas to park on the pavement while still allowing room for pushchairs or people in wheelchairs to pass.”

Hugh Bladon of the Alliance of British Drivers argues a complete ban would cause serious problems as some streets were so narrow.

The simple way to deal with the problems, Mr Bladon believes, is that all drivers must leave at least one metre between their car and the inside of the pavement to allow people with pushchairs and so on to pass by.

10 . “There is one and only one social responsibility of business,” wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, “that is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” But even if you accept Friedman’s statement and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are charged with corruption (腐败).

The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse (分散的) “halo effect” its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.

Previous studies on CSR have had trouble distinguishing these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions (起诉) under American’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect.

The study finds that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tend to get more lenient punishments. Their analysis rules out the possibility that it is the firm’s political influence, rather than its CSR stance, that accounts for the leniency: Companies that contribute more to political campaigns do not receive lower fines.

In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labor-rights concern, such as child labor, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials.” says one researcher.

Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are relying on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.