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 . 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.

5 . 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.

7 . Family time is one of the most important times in a child’s life. My family and I spend a lot of time together, including having dinner together every night.    1    Even when my father is away on business, my mother, my sister and I talk and have fun together. As a teenager, spending time with my parents is not the most fun thing I do but I feel it is necessary. I learn from them every time we talk, whether it is about my dad’s job or my mother’s days.

    2    Data show that only half of families sit down for dinner together every night. That’s a shame because researchers claim that kids who have these regular family dinners tend to have a sense of belonging and safety.    3    And they are also more likely to have better grades and a larger vocabulary.

There have been many recent studies showing kids are “wilder” than they used to be.    4     Some think less attention from parents might be one of them. If parents spend more time with their children, they will keep their kids away from television, video games and “wild” ideas,

I have noticed in old TV shows and my parents’ stories that not long ago sitting at the family dinner table was not a choice, but a must.    5    It is probably because parents and children are under more pressure from work and study. Although we all lead busy lives and are always running around trying to finish homework or play sports, we should all spend 20 minutes each day to eat dinner together.

8 . Every festival has its own meaning. Labor Day, for example, celebrates the value of hard work. Thanksgiving is about showing thanks to people around you. And Valentines’ Day is a time when you express love to your loved ones. But somehow it now seems that all festivals we just care about one thing — shopping. And that can be a big problem.

“In a way, over-consumption (过度消费) is the mother of all our environmental problems,” Kalle Lasn once told CNN. Lasn is the organizer of Buy Nothing Day, a day set up in Canada in 1992 to fight against unhealthy spending habits, and has now become an international event. It’s held on the day, which is known as Black Friday — a famous shopping day in the US and Canada.

You can see the irony (讽刺) here.

Even though the idea of Buy Nothing Day was brought up 26 years ago, we seem to need it now more than ever. It’s just as Lasn said, all the different kinds of pollution in our lives today — bad air quality, the reduction of forest area, endangered animal species, and plastic bags found in the ocean — seem to be the same cause: over-consumption.

The latest example is the Singles’ Day shopping craze of Nov 11, which saw a new sales record. But as Nie Li, a campaigner at Greenpeace, told Reuters, “Record-setting over-consumption means record-setting waste.” And it was reported that last year the Singles’ Day packages left more than 160,000 tons of waste, including plastic and cardboard. The Collins Dictionary has also just named “single-use” its Word of the Year, pointing out the problem that there’re too many things we tow out after only using them once.

So, Buy Nothing Day might only be here for one day a year, but it’s not just to remind us to the a break from shopping on that day, but to change our lifestyle completely, focusing on fun “with people we care about” rather than wasting money on useless things.