The Rise of Robot-Chefs

CREATOR is a new hamburger joint in San Francisco. It now claims to deliver a burger worth $18 for $6—in other words, (provide) the quality associated with expensive restaurants at a fast-food price. What matters behind this claim is that its chef is a robot.

Creator's burger robot is a trolley-sized unit that has a footprint of two square metres. Customers send it their orders via a tablet. They are able to cook everything from well-done the burger will be to the type of cheese and toppings they want.

The process sounds rather simple now. But, in fact, the machine took eight years to perfect after it (create). As far back as 2012, a mere two years into the project, it was described as "95% reliable", but that is not enough for a busy kitchen. Chopping tomatoes was a particularly tough challenge, but even details like the very tool packs the burger into a bag without squeezing it were tricky for the machine to master. Only now, with a machine to make reliably 120 burgers an hour, Alex Vardakostas, the engineer behind the project, and his co-founders, a mixture of technologists and caterers, feel confident enough to open their first restaurant.

Creator is not alone. Other robot chefs have already been working, (prepare) entire meals, or soon will be, in kitchens in other parts of the world. that, this new wave of automation could signal a dramatic shift in the way the fast food industry employs people. That does not necessarily mean (employ) fewer staff. Rather, more of them will be in roles where they can directly help customers. "Creator's goal is not to be the most automated and (human-centered) restaurant, but actually not," said Vardakostas.

It is too early to say whether this first wave of robot chefs will develop well in such a demanding environment as the kitchen. it does, it's certain to mark a change in our relationship with cookery. Cooking could be something people choose to do simply for the sheer pleasure of it.

The Correct Answer to the Question

The usual answer to the greeting "How are you?" is generally "Not too bad." Why? Because it's all-purpose. Whatever the circumstances, whatever the conditions, "Not too bad" will get you through. On an average day it a confusing modesty. In good times it implies a decent pessimism (悲观), a kind of to express oneself. And when things are rough, really rough and annoying, it becomes a heroic , as if everything goes well. Best of all, it gently prevents further inquiry with all three syllables (音节) equally , because it is basically meaningless.

Americans are small-talk artists. They have to be. This is a wild country. The weakest agreement one person to the next. So the "Have a nice day", the "Hot enough for you", and the "How about those guys" serve a vital purpose. Without these little commonly-used phrases and the social contract that they represent, to calm people, the streets would be a free-for-all exhibition of disaster.

But that's the negative view. Some of my happiest interactions with other human beings have been glancing moments of small talks. It's an extraordinary thing. A person stands before you, a complete stranger, and the best everyday small talk can have his or her soul in front of your eyes.

I was out walking the other day when a UPS truck pulled to the side of the road. As the driver leaped from his cab to make a , I heard relaxing music coming out of the truck's speakers -- a kind of familiar and weightless blues music, and it's my favorite tune. "China Cat Sunflower?" I said to the UPS guy as he rushed back to his truck. He showed a huge smile, "You got it, babe!"

The exchange of feelings, the perfect understanding, the simplest small talk that emerged instantly between us, and, most of all, the "babe"—I was high as a kite for the next 10 minutes after such a pure small talk.

If you're chained to your phone and unhappy about it, you might consider receiving smartphone notifications (通知) at set 1 throughout the day rather than as they come. Researchers at Duke University and Georgetown University found that study participants who received notifications set to arrive only three times a day reported better moods, higher 2, and greater feelings of control over their phones. In comparison with participants who received notifications as usual and another group of participants who received no notifications at all, study participants also 3 their phones less often.

In total, 237 smartphone owners living in India participated in the study. Participants downloaded an Android app developed by the researchers that regulated the 4 of phone notifications. Respondents also were asked to report in a daily diary 5 measures including: "concentration, distraction, stress, anxiety, mood, productivity, social connectedness, and work enjoyment -- as well as phone-specific 6: feeling of being interrupted by notifications, sense of missing out on notifications, sense of control over phone, social pressure to 7 others, phone overuse, and intentional phone checking." Participants were informed that they could always 8 their notifications by opening individual apps. And the authors give their further explanation, "9, we only controlled the delivery of notifications (e.g., to the lock screen), rather than preventing messages from being accessed at all."

"Compared to those in the control condition (notifications as usual), participants whose notifications were set three-times-a-day felt more 10, productive, in a better mood, and in greater control of their phones," the researchers write, noting that this group also reported lower stress levels. "In contrast, participants who did not receive notifications at all 11 few of those benefits, but experienced higher levels of anxiety and ‘12 of missing out' (FoMO)." They've released the app, called Daywise, for personal use through Google Play. But Daywise has been only 13 on the Android platform so far. "Unlike the app Android, iOS (short for Internetwork Operating System) doesn't allow 14 party developers to control notifications to a degree we'd like for setting to work in a nuanced (细微的) manner," DayWise creator Ranjan Jagannathan told us. "Till we're able to do this 15 enough, we will not be able to build a powerful version of Daywise for iOS. We are working for it."

Years of unbalanced investment in public parks has left 100 million Americans without access to decent nearby green spaces during the coronavirus lockdown, a new report reveals.

Local parks have been a godsend to many people during the disease as schools, gyms and walking trails have closed to minimize physical contact and check the spread of the virus. But the annual parks score index by the Trust for Public Land (TPL) has revealed wide gap in access. For instance, 98% of residents in Washington and Minnesota are within a ten-minute walk of a park, compared to less than 50% of those in cities like Arizona and Oklahoma City.

Even within cities, access to green spaces – like access to healthy food, healthcare and good schools – is also unfair, with low-income households and people of colour least likely to live close to parks with basic facilities like toilets, playgrounds and basketball courts.

As summer edges closer, it's clear that public parks will play a crucial role in providing safe, affordable leisure spaces for millions of people unable to work or travel. Yet, evidence detailed in the report suggests park services could face dramatic cutbacks as local governments face unprecedented economic challenges as a result of the shutdowns.

A survey of 300 park officials in mid-April by the National Recreation and Park Association found that about half had already been instructed to cut budgets by 10% to 20% for the current financial year. Nationwide, the parks system took years to recover from budget cuts after the Great Recession that upset planned improvements and expansions. The economic consequences of the coronavirus disease are expected to be both deeper and longer.

For environmental justice activists, there is some hope. The unprecedented crisis could enhance appreciation for parks – and encourage a wave of local activism to fight for fair access. Rue Mapp, the founder and CEO of Outdoor Afro, said, "This is an opportunity for us to rethink public lands and to get people out of the mindset that nature is somewhere that you have to drive to."

Allan T. Demaree, a retired executive editor of Fortune magazine, gladly makes donations to Princeton University, his alma mater. His son, who also went to Princeton, points to its endowment of $15.8 billion, and will not give it a penny.

"Why give money to an institution that can seemingly live off its interest when other very deserving entities need money to function tomorrow?" asked the son, Heath Demaree, a professor at Case Western Reserve University who instead donates to Virginia Tech, where he was a graduate student. His question captures how the wealth collected by elite universities like Princeton through soaring endowments over the past decade has widened the divide between a small group of dramaticly wealthy universities and all others.

The result is that America's already stratified system of higher education is becoming ever more so, and the gap is creating all sorts of tensions as the less wealthy colleges try to compete. Even state universities are going into fund-raising overdrive and trying to increase endowments to catch up.

The wealthiest colleges can tap their endowments to give considerable financial aid to families earning $180,000 or more. They can tempt star professors with high salaries and hard-to-get apartments. They are starting advanced new research laboratories, expanding their campuses and putting up architecturally notable buildings.

Higher education has always been stratified, but the differences were never as large as today. The last decade brought a sea change, as skilled money managers hired by the universities moved their portfolios into high-performing investments, and endowments skyrocketed.

Until recently, top public research universities could rely on enough public subsidy to hold their own, when the taxpayer money was combined with tuition and fund-raising. But that world is changing.

The University of California, Berkeley has a $3 billion endowment, but it is stretched across 34,000 students. And with state budget cuts approaching, Robert Birgeneau, its president, fears he will no longer be able to attract the best professors and students.

"It will cost less for a student from a family with an income of $180,000 to go to Harvard than for a student with a family income of $90,000 to go to Berkeley," he said, taking into account Harvard's recent decision to give more financial aid to families earning up to $180,000 annually.

What Is Nonverbal Communication?

Nonverbal communication is the process of sending and receiving messages without using words, either spoken or written. Similar to the way that italicizing (斜体) emphasizes written language, nonverbal behavior may emphasize parts of a verbal message.

For instance, in "The Advancement of Learning"" (1605), Francis Bacon observed that "the features of the body do reveal the tendency and inclination of the mind in general, but the motions of the facial expressions and parts do not only so, but do further reveal the present humour and state of the mind and will."
Psychologists Paul Ekman and Wallace Friesen (1969), in discussing the interdependence that exists between nonverbal and verbal messages, identified six important ways that nonverbal communication directly affects our verbal messages. First, we can use nonverbal signals to emphasize our words. Second, our nonverbal behavior can repeat what we say. We can say yes to someone while nodding our head. Third, nonverbal signals can substitute for words. Often, there isn't much need to put things in words. A simple gesture is enough. Fourth, we can use nonverbal signals to regulate speech. Fifth, nonverbal messages sometimes contradict (与…矛盾) what we say. A friend tells us she had a great time at the beach, but we're not sure because her voice is flat and her face lacks emotion. Being upset could mean we feel angry, depressed, disappointed, or just a bit on edge. Nonverbal signals can help to make clear the words we use and reveal the true nature of our feelings.

A. Finally, nonverbal communication itself carries the impact of a message.
B. Finally, we can use nonverbal signals to add to the verbal content of our message.
C. Nonverbal messages have been recognized for centuries as a critical aspect of communication.
D. All good speakers know how to do this with forceful gestures, changes in vocal volume or speech rate, deliberate pauses, and so on.
E. Called turn-taking signals, these gestures and vocalizations (发声) make it possible for us to alternate the conversational roles of speaking and listening.
F. The term was introduced in 1956 in the book "Nonverbal Communication: Notes on the Visual Perception of Human Relations".

Want to be a Smart Gift Giver?

During all kinds of holidays, millions of people will buy gifts for loved ones, which is great except that tons of those people will make the same glaring mistake, and buy the wrong gifts. What's going on?

Gift buying has become a deceivingly selfish pursuit. We don't actually look for things people want to receive. Instead, we tend to look for things that we want to give. It's a subtle, but pretty significant problem.

Research has shown that givers tend to value the gifts they buy considerably more than receivers. Gifts are valued roughly 10 to 33 percent less by receivers than what givers paid for them. Joel Waldfogel noted this in Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn't Buy Presents for the Holidays, his 2009 book on gift-giving.

The difference seems to come from a simple misplaced belief that thoughtful presents are the best presents. They are not. In fact, they might just be the worst presents. The more thought you put into a present, the more likely you are to stray from buying what the person you are buying the presents for actually wants.

In other words, people let their gift-giving egos (自我) get in the way of great presents, especially when the receiver is someone they want to show they know really well. Fortunately, the answer to our collective insistence on guessing what people want is simple: stop it.

If that's too impersonal, there's another helpful rule of thumb (经验之谈). Instead of buying restrictive gifts, like gift cards for specific stores, buy gifts that allow for flexibility, like gift cards that can be used more broadly (or, better yet, cash). People tend to prefer gift cards to actual gifts, and cash to both, Steffel explained. Steffel's latest research, which focuses on gift card giving, points to exactly this point -- that versatility (用途广泛) is the key to better gift giving.

假定你是明启中学的学生李华。学校将举行一次演讲比赛，主题为我心目中的英雄。“灿烂星空，谁是真的英雄？”做出惊天动地之举的人是英雄，为追求真理献出生命的人是英雄，在平凡岗位上默默奉献的人是英雄……请你结合具体事例写一份演讲稿，阐述你心目中真正的英雄。

注意：作文中不得出现你本人的姓名、班级及学校等真实信息。