1 . Facebook Is a Big Waster

During the first decade of the 21st century, a popular and new word has come into our vocabulary—Facebook. This is the most popular social networking website on the Internet. The main idea of Facebook is that you can keep in touch with all your friends around the world who have Facebook. You can send messages to your friend’s electronic wall, put up a status saying something like “Going to the mall, I need to get a new pair of shoes” or “it’s finally the weekend!”

In spite of the benefit it does on common people, it is true that this social network is a big waster. There are about 350 million active users on this website and 67% of them are between the ages of 13-25. More than 35 million users update their status every day.     1    

The highest age group who use Facebook are teenagers. Most of them keep the website running whenever they are using the computer. if they aren’t in school or when they aren’t asleep. Facebook is just changing the new generation of youngsters unconsciously. The teenage life is one of the most important stages of life.     2     It is a distraction (分心，注意力分散) to their mind as well. Nowadays, when all their homework and research are on ICT (信息技术) they would easily switch to Facebook just to check if there was anything updated among their friends.

Facebook is also where people can see the gossip among their friends, virtual arguments, relationship status and updates, who is in whose “top friends”, you can become fan of anything, join groups, post pictures and videos, play childish games, invite friends to parties or events and a lot more. Generally, all these would just disturb (扰乱；妨碍) people into living life to the fullest. It’s not just teens who become addicted, even grown-ups do. An average person spends about 55 minutes on Facebook.     3     Technology might be taking over people’s life. Furthermore, people who use Facebook through their mobile phones are 50% more active on Facebook than non-mobile phone users. This shows people using Facebook on their phone s as well as computers just can’t stand being away from the website. Facebook is like crack to some folk.

    4     This would make them think how life is like without saying what’s on their mind to all their friends on the Internet. A break would also make them more active, like socializing in person. This would finally help them focus better in school or in work. Although about 80% of people who take a break would come back to Facebook within days.

2 . Many people would answer the question of what makes us human by insisting that we are cultural beings. There is no doubt that we are. But one definition of culture is the totality of traditions acquired in a community by social learning from other individuals, and many animal species have traditions. Can we then say that some animals are cultural beings too?

One approach to study culture in animals is the so-called Method of Exclusion (排除), in which scientists investigate behavioral variations across populations of one species. In a famous study, scientists learned that chimpanzee (黑猩猩) behaviors were socially passed on as they were present at some sites but not at others, despite having same ecological settings. For example, chimpanzees in Tai National Park in Ivory Coast are well-known for their nut-cracking skills. Chimpanzees in Gombe national part in Tanzania, on the other hand, do not crack nuts, although nuts exist in their environment too.

However, when applying the Method of Exclusion, one has to be very careful. There are other factors that could also explain the pattern of behavioral evaluation. For example, some of the chimpanzee techniques scientists evaluated occur in only one of the three subspecies. So it’s quite possible that these behaviors also have an innate component. This would mean that one chimpanzee subspecies uses a new technique not out of cultural tradition, but because the behavior is fixed to specific genes. Another factor that has to be excluded is of course the environment Chimpanzees in Mahale do not fish algae (水藻), simply because algae does not exist there.

But when we exclude all the variations that can be explained by genes or environment, we still find that animals do show cultural variations. Does that mean there is no real difference between them and us after all? Not exactly: There is a fundamental difference between human and animal culture. Only humans can build culturally on what generations before us have learned. This is called “cumulative culture”. We don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel. This is called the “ratchet (棘轮) effect”. Like a ratchet that can be turned forward but not back, people’s cultural techniques evolve.

It is likely that behaviors we see today in chimpanzee cultures could be invented over and over again by individual animals themselves. In contrast, a child born today would not be able to invent a computer without the knowledge of many past generations.

3 . When Elinor Lobel was 16, a “smart” insulin (胰岛素) pump was attached to her body. Powered by AI, it tracks her glucose levels and administers the right dose of insulin at the right time to keep her healthy. It is one of the new ways that data and AI can help improve lives.

Books that criticize the dark side of data are plentiful. They generally suggest there is much more to fear than fete in the algorithmic(算法的)age.

But the intellectual tide may be turning. One of the most persuasive supporters of a more balanced view is Elinor Lobel’s mother, Orly, a law professor. In The Equality Machine she acknowledges AI’s capacity to produce harmful results. But she shows how, in the right hands, it can also be used to fight inequality and discrimination.

A principle of privacy rules is “minimization”: collect and keep as little information as possible, especially in areas such as race and gender. Ms Lobel flips the script, showing how in hiring, pay and the legal system, knowing such characteristics leads to fairer outcomes.

Ms Lobel’s call to use more, not less, personal information challenges data-privacy orthodoxy(正统观念). But she insists that “tracking differences is key to detecting unfairness.” She advocates g loosening of privacy rules to provide more transparency(透明)over algorithmic decisions.

The problems with algorithmic formulae(公式) are tackled in depth in Escape from Model Land by Erica Thompson of the School of Economics. These statistical models are the backbone of big data and AL. Yet a perfect model will always be beyond reach. “All models are wrong,” runs a wise saying. “Some are useful.”

Ms Thompson focuses on a challenge she calls the Hawkmoth Effect. In the better known Butterfly Effect, a serviceable model, Vin the prediction of climate change, becomes less reliable over time because of the complexity of what it is simulating(模拟), or because of inaccuracies in the original data. In the Hawkmoth Effect, by contrast, the model itself is flawed; it might fail to take full account of the interplay between humidity, wind and temperature.

The author calls on data geeks to improve their solutions to real-world issues, not merely refine their formulae—in other words, to escape from model land. “We do not need to have the best possible answer,” she writes, “only a reasonable one.”

Both these books exhibit a healthy realism about data, algorithms and their limitations. Both recognize that making progress involves accepting limitations, whether in law or coding. As Ms Lobel puts it: “It’s always better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”

4 . When Elinor Lobel was 16, a “smart” insulin (胰岛素) pump was attached to her body. Powered by AI, it tracks her glucose levels and administers the right dose of insulin at the right time to keep her healthy. It is one of the new ways that data and AI can help improve lives.

Books that criticize the dark side of data are plentiful. They generally suggest there is much more to fear than fete in the algorithmic(算法的)age.

But the intellectual tide may be turning. One of the most persuasive supporters of a more balanced view is Elinor Lobel’s mother, Orly, a law professor. In The Equality Machine she acknowledges AI’s capacity to produce harmful results. But she shows how, in the right hands, it can also be used to fight inequality and discrimination.

A principle of privacy rules is “minimization”: collect and keep as little information as possible, especially in areas such as race and gender. Ms Lobel flips the script, showing how in hiring, pay and the legal system, knowing such characteristics leads to fairer outcomes.

Ms Lobel’s call to use more, not less, personal information challenges data-privacy orthodoxy(正统观念). But she insists that “tracking differences is key to detecting unfairness.” She advocates g loosening of privacy rules to provide more transparency(透明)over algorithmic decisions.

The problems with algorithmic formulae(公式) are tackled in depth in Escape from Model Land by Erica Thompson of the School of Economics. These statistical models are the backbone of big data and AL. Yet a perfect model will always be beyond reach. “All models are wrong,” runs a wise saying. “Some are useful.”

Ms Thompson focuses on a challenge she calls the Hawkmoth Effect. In the better known Butterfly Effect, a serviceable model, Vin the prediction of climate change, becomes less reliable over time because of the complexity of what it is simulating(模拟), or because of inaccuracies in the original data. In the Hawkmoth Effect, by contrast, the model itself is flawed; it might fail to take full account of the interplay between humidity, wind and temperature.

The author calls on data geeks to improve their solutions to real-world issues, not merely refine their formulae—in other words, to escape from model land. “We do not need to have the best possible answer,” she writes, “only a reasonable one.”

Both these books exhibit a healthy realism about data, algorithms and their limitations. Both recognize that making progress involves accepting limitations, whether in law or coding. As Ms Lobel puts it: “It’s always better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.”

5 . “What would the world be if there were no hunger?” It’s a question that Professor Crystal would ask her students. They found it hard to answer, she wrote later, because imagining something that isn’t part of real life—and learning how to make it real—is a rare skill. It is taught to artists and engineers, but much less often to scientists. Crystal set out to change that, and helped to create a global movement. The result—an approach known as systems thinking—is now seen as essential in meeting global challenges.

Systems thinking is crucial to achieving targets such as zero hunger and better nutrition because it requires considering the way in which food is produced, processed, delivered and consumed, and looking at how those things intersect (交叉 ) with human health, the environment, economics and society. According to systems thinking, changing the food system—or any other network—requires three things to happen. First, researchers need to identify all the players in that system; second, they must work out how they relate to each other; and third, they need to understand and quantify the impact of those relationships on each other and on those outside the system.

Take nutrition. In the latest UN report on global food security, the number of undernourished (营养不良 )people in the world has been rising, despite great advances in nutrition science. Tracking of 150 biochemicals in food has been important in revealing the relationships between calories, sugar, fat and the occurrence of common diseases. But using machine learning and artificial intelligence, some scientists propose that human diets consist of at least 26,000 biochemicals—and that the vast majority are not known. This shows that we have some way to travel before achieving the first objective of systems thinking - which,in this example, is to identify more constituent parts of the nutrition system.

A systems approach to creating change is also built on the assumption that everyone in the system has equal power. But as some researchers find, the food system is not an equal one. A good way to redress (修正 ) such power imbalance is for more universities to do what Crystal did and teach students how to think using a systems approach.

More researchers, policymakers and representatives from the food industry must learn to look beyond their direct lines of responsibility and adopt a systems approach. Crystal knew that visions alone don’t produce results, but concluded that “we’ll never produce results that we can’t envision”.

6 . 1. One question every coach has beard in their coaching career is this.

“Why isn’t my kid playing?”

The stupidity of many “win-at-all-cost” coaches in youth sports is neatly matched by that of “play-my-kid-or-else” parents at the high-school level.

When the games start to count, the main reason why your kid isn’t playing is simple:

“They’re just not good enough.”

“He/she just isn’t fast enough.”

“He/she just isn’t strong enough.”

Good coaches, however, are not usually that blunt. They are very skillful in not telling what you and I would consider the “truth”. The thing is that many kids know what they’re good at, and what they’re not good at. When it comes to football, for instance, most of the middle-schoolers or freshmen already know the one or two kids who are good enough to play on the varsity team or to catch the eye of a college admissions officer. Their parents do not.

The rest play because they enjoy it, need the discipline, want to belong to a team, have dreamed of it since they were five or six, are trying to make their parents happy, need a varsity sport on their college application, or some combination of the factors above. Some of them don’t possess much athletic skill, but make up for it by practicing, by getting stronger and quicker, and with on-field effort.

Far too many children today are living in a world where they never learn “no”. They don’t know how to handle disappointment and failure. Nor do they know how to react and move on when they don’t get their own way.

It’s awful when your kid isn't playing. Been there, done that. No reasonable parent wants to see their child hurt. But no one escapes this life unhurt, emotionally if not physically. When these kids move on in life, they are going to get rejected when they apply for college, fail to get the job they want, and taste failure and disappointment on multiple fronts.

Coaches should try to make sure everyone gets some playing time. But that should never come at the expense of other kids who are more talented, try harder or spend more time practicing. No child should ever go out for any team thinking they’re going to be guaranteed a spot or playing time, no matter how loudly their parents complain.

In that sense, sports are a true mirror of life. No one is guaranteed “playing” time in life. For the most part, hard work, effort, planning and desire is rewarded. The benefits can be wonderful. But it’s good to be prepared when it doesn't work out that way.

7 . 1. One question every coach has beard in their coaching career is this.

“Why isn’t my kid playing?”

The stupidity of many “win-at-all-cost” coaches in youth sports is neatly matched by that of “play-my-kid-or-else” parents at the high-school level.

When the games start to count, the main reason why your kid isn’t playing is simple:

“They’re just not good enough.”

“He/she just isn’t fast enough.”

“He/she just isn’t strong enough.”

Good coaches, however, are not usually that blunt. They are very skillful in not telling what you and I would consider the “truth”. The thing is that many kids know what they’re good at, and what they’re not good at. When it comes to football, for instance, most of the middle-schoolers or freshmen already know the one or two kids who are good enough to play on the varsity team or to catch the eye of a college admissions officer. Their parents do not.

The rest play because they enjoy it, need the discipline, want to belong to a team, have dreamed of it since they were five or six, are trying to make their parents happy, need a varsity sport on their college application, or some combination of the factors above. Some of them don’t possess much athletic skill, but make up for it by practicing, by getting stronger and quicker, and with on-field effort.

Far too many children today are living in a world where they never learn “no”. They don’t know how to handle disappointment and failure. Nor do they know how to react and move on when they don’t get their own way.

It’s awful when your kid isn't playing. Been there, done that. No reasonable parent wants to see their child hurt. But no one escapes this life unhurt, emotionally if not physically. When these kids move on in life, they are going to get rejected when they apply for college, fail to get the job they want, and taste failure and disappointment on multiple fronts.

Coaches should try to make sure everyone gets some playing time. But that should never come at the expense of other kids who are more talented, try harder or spend more time practicing. No child should ever go out for any team thinking they’re going to be guaranteed a spot or playing time, no matter how loudly their parents complain.

In that sense, sports are a true mirror of life. No one is guaranteed “playing” time in life. For the most part, hard work, effort, planning and desire is rewarded. The benefits can be wonderful. But it’s good to be prepared when it doesn't work out that way.

8 . 1. One question every coach has beard in their coaching career is this.

“Why isn’t my kid playing?”

The stupidity of many “win-at-all-cost” coaches in youth sports is neatly matched by that of “play-my-kid-or-else” parents at the high-school level.

When the games start to count, the main reason why your kid isn’t playing is simple:

“They’re just not good enough.”

“He/she just isn’t fast enough.”

“He/she just isn’t strong enough.”

Good coaches, however, are not usually that blunt. They are very skillful in not telling what you and I would consider the “truth”. The thing is that many kids know what they’re good at, and what they’re not good at. When it comes to football, for instance, most of the middle-schoolers or freshmen already know the one or two kids who are good enough to play on the varsity team or to catch the eye of a college admissions officer. Their parents do not.

The rest play because they enjoy it, need the discipline, want to belong to a team, have dreamed of it since they were five or six, are trying to make their parents happy, need a varsity sport on their college application, or some combination of the factors above. Some of them don’t possess much athletic skill, but make up for it by practicing, by getting stronger and quicker, and with on-field effort.

Far too many children today are living in a world where they never learn “no”. They don’t know how to handle disappointment and failure. Nor do they know how to react and move on when they don’t get their own way.

It’s awful when your kid isn't playing. Been there, done that. No reasonable parent wants to see their child hurt. But no one escapes this life unhurt, emotionally if not physically. When these kids move on in life, they are going to get rejected when they apply for college, fail to get the job they want, and taste failure and disappointment on multiple fronts.

Coaches should try to make sure everyone gets some playing time. But that should never come at the expense of other kids who are more talented, try harder or spend more time practicing. No child should ever go out for any team thinking they’re going to be guaranteed a spot or playing time, no matter how loudly their parents complain.

In that sense, sports are a true mirror of life. No one is guaranteed “playing” time in life. For the most part, hard work, effort, planning and desire is rewarded. The benefits can be wonderful. But it’s good to be prepared when it doesn't work out that way.

10 . Hundreds of scientists, writers and academics sounded a warning to humanity in an open letter published last December: Policymakers and the rest of us must engage openly with the risk of global collapse. Researchers in many areas have projected the widespread collapse as “a credible scenario（情景）this century”.

A survey of scientists found that extreme weather events, food insecurity, and freshwater shortages might create global collapse. Of course, if you are a non-human species, collapse is well underway.

The call for public engagement with the unthinkable is especially germane in this moment of still-uncontrolled pandemic and economic crises in the world’s most technologically advanced nations. Not very long ago, it was also unthinkable that a virus would shut down nations and that safety nets would be proven so disastrously lacking in flexibility.

The international scholars’ warning letter doesn’t say exactly what collapse will look like or when it might happen. Collapseology, the study of collapse, is more concerned with identifying trends and with them the dangers of everyday civilization. Among the signatories（签署者）of the warning was Bob Johnson, the originator of the “ecological footprint” concept, which measures the total amount of environmental input needed to maintain a given lifestyle. With the current footprint of humanity, “it seems that global collapse is certain to happen in some form, possibly within a decade, certainly within this century, ” Johnson said in an email.

Only if we discuss the consequences of our biophysical limits, the December warning letter says, can we have the hope to reduce their “speed, severity and harm”. And yet messengers of the coming disturbance are likely to be ignored. We all want to hope things will turn out fine. As a poet wrote,

Man is a victim of dope（麻醉品）

In the incurable form of hope.

The hundreds of scholars who signed the letter are intent（执着）on quieting hope that ignores preparedness. “Let’s look directly into the issue of collapse, ” they say, “and deal with the terrible possibilities of what we see there to make the best of a troubling future. ”