It was dawn of March 21, 2018. Gary Messina was on his morning run along New York City'8East River. Suddenly something caught his eye—a large 60-year-old man balancing on the four-foot-high fence that guarded the path from the water. As Messina got closer to the scene, the man took a step forward and slipped into the dark river below.

    When Messina reached nearer, the man was struggling in the water, clearly unable to swim. Other joggers also heard the man's cry. David Blauzvern and John Green dropped their phones and keys on land and jumped in. “ People had called the police, but it was unclear when they'd get there,” says Green. “We just reacted. Messina joined them in the river. Just as the jumper was losing strength, Blauzvern take hold of him. The pair were about 30 yards from the seawall when Messina and Green caught up to them. They seized the man, with Blauzvern supporting his back and Messina and Green holding him up from either side. As the men made their way toward the concrete seawall that stretched for blocks in each direction, Blauzvern had an awful realization:there was no way out of the river.

    By now, a crowd had gathered on land. “A rescue boat is on its way, someone yelled to them. Swimming forward was getting tougher by the minute. The jumper, who was six foot two and weighed around 260 pounds, was heavy in his rescuers' arms. After ten minutes, they managed to get to the river's edge. “I've never been so out of breath, ”says Blauzvern.

    Fifteen minutes after the men had jumped into the river, the two-man rescue boat appeared. But because it couldn't risk getting too close to the seawall, the men had to swim out to it. “I was completely out of energy at this point, “says Blauzver. The men in the water pushed the jumper while the men in the boat pulled him up and, finally, to safety. The man they had saved was taken to the hospital for evaluation(评估). Details on his condition have not been released. As for the rescuers, each of them was at work by 10:30a. m. “I was a bit late,” admits Blauzvern, smiling. “But I had a good excuse.”

    From the loss of wildlife to rising sea levels, we're all well aware of the problems that climate change could cause.

    But while it may seem like such issues won't affect most of us directly，it looks like future generations could grow up without something that many of us now take for granted: chocolate.

    According to an essay published by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, changes to the climate in the regions that produce cacao - the plant from which chocolate is produced - may mean that it will soon become extinct.

    Most of the world's cacao grows in countries close to the equator，with over half of it growing in the African nations of Ghana and Ivory Coast.

It's predicted that by 2050, climate change will have accelerated the rate at which temperatures in these countries rise, making it extremely difficult for cacao to grow there.

    The problem doesn't lie in increased heat, however，but in lower humidity (湿度)，as it's believed that rainfall will stay at the same level if the temperature rises.

    “In other words, as higher temperatures squeeze more water out of soil and plants, it's unlikely that rainfall will increase enough to offset the moisture (含水量) loss,” Michon Scott, the essay's author, wrote.

    To help fight this problem, researchers from Berkeley University in the US are working on changing the DNA of cacao plants to allow them to survive in dryer conditions by using gene editing technology, according to US News.

    In the meantime, US company Mars, one of the world's biggest manufacturers of chocolate products, announced in January that it would spend $1 billion to help reduce the effects of climate change.

    “This is a world issue, and it requires everyone to work together,” Mars spokesperson Barry Parkin told Business Insider.

    The message here is that if we all do our part, we may be able to prevent some of the worst impacts of climate change. Or if we're unlucky, chocolate will become a thing of the past.

    Audrey Hepburn won an Academy Award as Best Actress for her first major American movie，Roman Holiday，which was released in 1953．But she is remembered as much for her aid work as for her acting．

    Born in Belgium in 1929，Audrey's father was British and her mother was Dutch．Audrey was sent to live at a British school for part of her childhood．During World War II，she lived and studied in the Netherlands. Her mother thought it would be safe from German attacks．Audrey studied dance as a teenager and during college when she returned to London after the war．But she realized she wasn't going to be a ballerina （芭蕾舞女演员）．So she began taking acting parts in stage shows．Later she began to get small parts in movies．

    But it was Audrey Hepburn's move to America that brought her true fame．In 1951 she played the character"Gigi"in the Broadway play of the same name to great critical praise．Two years later，Roman Holiday made her a star at the age of 24．

    Audrey made more than 25movies．Among her most popular roles was Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tifany's in 1961．Three years later she played Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady．

    She was married two times and had one son by each husband．In 1989，the UN Children's Fund named Audrey a goodwill ambassador．She travelled all over the world in support of UNICEF （联合国儿童基金会） projects．The UN agency said she was a tireless worker．She often gave 15interviews a day to gain money and support for UNICEF projects．

    Audrey Hepburn often said her loyalty to UNICEF was the result of her experiences as a child during World War II．She said she knew what it was like to be starving and to be saved by international aid．She was a goodwill ambassador until her death in 1993from colon cancer．

        Let us all raise a glass to AlphaGo and the advance of artificial intelligence. AlphaGo, DeepMind's Go-playing AI, just defeated the best Go-playing human, Lee Sedol. But as we drink to its success. We should also begin trying to understand what it means for the future.

    The number of possible moves in a game of Go is so huge that in order to win against a player like Lee. AlphaGo was designed to adopt a human—like style of gameplay by using a relatively recent development--deep learning. Deep learning uses large data sets, “machine learning” algorithms （计算程序） and deep neural networks to teach the AI how to perform a particular set of tasks. Rather than programming complex Go rules and strategies into AlphaGo, DeepMind designers taught AlphaGo to play the game by feeding it data based on typical Go moves. Then, AlphaGo played against itself, tirelessly learning from its own mistakes and improving its gameplay over time. The results speak for themselves.

    Deep learning represents a shift in the relationship humans have with their technological creations. It results in AI that displays surprising and unpredictable behaviour. Commenting after his first loss, Lee described being shocked by an unconventional move he claimed no human would ever have made. Demis Hassabis. one of DeepMind's founders, echoed this comment：“We're very pleased that AlphaGo played some quite surprising and beautiful moves.”

    Unpredictability and surprises are—or can be—a good thing. They can indicate that a system is working well, perhaps better than the humans that came before it. Such is the case with AlphaGo. However, unpredictability also indicates a loss of human control. That Hassabis is surprised at his creation's behaviour suggests a lack of control in the design. And though some loss of control might be fine in the context of a game such as Go, it raises urgent questions elsewhere.

    How much and what kind of control should we give up to AI machines? How should we design appropriate human control into AI that requires us to give up some of that very control? Is there some AI that we should just not develop if it means any loss of human control? How much of a say should corporations, governments, experts or citizens have in these matters? These important questions, and many others like them, have emerged in response, but remain unanswered. They require human, not human - like, solutions.

    So as we drink to the milestone in AI, let's also drink to the understanding that the time to answer deeply human questions about deep learning and AI is now.

    People speak English in different parts of the world. The same words can be used in different ways, depending on where you live. People can also have completely different ways of saying the same thing.

    The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is asking the public to help it add new words. Editors want to find the regional differences in English around the world. They want to expand its record of the language.

    Last year, the OED, BBC Radio and the Forward Arts Foundation teamed up to find local words in the United Kingdom. It resulted in more than 100 regional words and phrases being added to the dictionary. One was "cuddy wifter", which means a left-handed person.

    Now, the OED is widening its search to English speakers around the world. Eleanor Maier, an editor at OED, said the response has been great. Editors are listing a bunch of suggestions to include in the dictionary.

    These include Hawaii's "hammajang", which means "in a disorderly state". Another is the word for a swimming costume, "dookers" or "duckers". It is used in Scotland.

    The OED also might include the word "frog-drowner", which Americans might use to describe a downpour of rain. Another possibility is "brick". It means "very cold" to people in New Jersey and New York City.

    The dictionary has already found that, depending on location, a picture hanging off center might be described as "agley". It might also be called "catawampous" or "ahoo".

    "The OED aims to cover all types of English," Maier said. That includes scientific words, slang and regional language. Maier also said that it can be difficult for the OED's editors to identify regional words. The terms are more often spoken than written down.

    The appeal is called Words Where You Are. It is looking for more suggestions. "We were surprised and pleased by the number of regional words we were able to include," said Maier.

In recent years, labels have increasingly been used by the food industry. Whether "non-GMO（转基因）"or"zero trans fat","no added hormones" or"sugar-free", consumers are demanding more information about what's in their food.

A report by Nielsen found that 39 percent of consumers would switch from the brands they currently buy to others that provide clearer, more accurate product information. Food manufacturers are using the new labels to meet consumers' demand, with an eye towards giving their products a leg up over the competition, and their bottom lines a boost as well.

On its face, the new marketing strategy makes sense. But these so-called "absence claims" labels are harmful both to the consumers who purchase the products and the industry that supplies them. For example, Hunt's put a "non-GMO" label on its tomatoes a few years ago — despite the fact that, at the time, there was no such thing as a GMO tomato on the market. Over the long term, this strategy will have the opposite effect: by creating fear, we run the risk of damaging consumers' trust.

Eventually, it becomes a question in consumers' minds: Should I have ever been eating these foods in the first place? By purchasing and consuming these types of products, have I already done some kind of harm to me?

For food manufacturers, it will damage consumers' trust, which in turn would lower sales for the whole food industry. And this isn't just supposition. A recent study by a group of academics at the University of Delaware found that "absence claims" labels can stigmatize(污名化)food produced with conventional processes even when there is no scientific evidence that they cause harm.

In addition to the likely negative long-term impact on sales, it sends a message that innovations in farming and food processing are unwelcome, eventually leading to less efficiency, fewer choices for consumers, and, ultimately, more costly food products. Therefore, it's clear that food manufacturers must be careful when using "absence claims" as a marketing strategy. If we allow this kind of label fear-mongering to continue, the losers will be all of us.