The year 2018 will mark the 100th anniversary of the deadliest influenza outbreak in history. It is estimated that the influenza pandemic(瘟疫) of 1918 killed more than 50 million people around the world. Other estimates go much higher. Because of a lack of medical record—keeping, we may never know the exact number.

    The influenza was a fast killer. Some victims died within hours of their first symptoms. Others died after a few days. “Their lungs filled with liquid and they choked to death. ”The 1918 flu pandemic was also different from other outbreaks. It struck many young, healthy people. Viruses usually affect sick or old people.

    Although modem medicine effectively controls many diseases, influenza remains difficult to protect against, The World Health Organization estimates that every year influenza kills 250, 000 to 500, 000 people around the world. Each year, medical scientists develop flu vaccines(疫苗) which offer immunity(免疫)from some influenza viruses. But they can only guess which form of the virus will spread.

    Health officials remain concerned about another flu pandemic. New forms of the flu virus appear regularly. One example was the “swine flu”or H1N1outbreak in 2009. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Infectious diseases in the United States says that virus caused a true pandemic.

    To stop the next pandemic, scientists are now researching how to create a universal influenza vaccine. In October 2017, Vanderbilt University Medical Center in the U. S. announced the Universal Influenza Vaccine Initiative. The university said researchers are leading an international effort to develop a universal influenza vaccine that will protect everyone against all forms of the flu anywhere in the world. The university added that researchers will begin tests in early 2018, the Human Vaccines Project, a public—private partnership, is funding the project. However, until a universal influenza vaccine is available, today's seasonal flu vaccine remains important.

    Social media is one of the fastest growing industries in today's world. A study conducted by the US Pew Research Center showed that 92 percent of teenagers go online daily. The wide spread of social media has changed nearly all parts of teenagers' lives.

    Changing relationships

    High school student Elly Cooper from Illinois said social media often reduces face- to-face communication. “It makes in-person relationships harder because of people's attention given to their phones instead of their boyfriends or girlfriends,” Cooper said.

    Yet, some people believe social media has made it easier to start relationships with anyone from anywhere. Beth Kaplan from Illinois met her long-distance friend through social media. He currently lives in Scotland, but they're still able to frequently communicate with each other. “I can feel close to someone that I'm talking to via FaceTime,” Kaplan said.

    Wanting to be “liked”

    The rise of social media has changed the way teenagers see themselves. The 19- year-old Essena O'Neill announced on the social networking service Instagram that she was quitting social media because it made her unable to stop thinking about appearing perfect online. Negative comments also can do great damage to a teenager's self-esteem. Teenagers who get negative comments can't help but feel hurt.

    Opening new doors

    However, Armin Korsos, a student from Illinois, takes advantage of the comments he receives over social media to improve his videos on the social networking site YouTube. “Social media can help people show themselves and their talents to the world in a way that has never been possible before,” Korsos said.

    Many people tend to complain about not having good friends in their lives. Sadly, they seem to think that their own company is not enough to make them happy. Nothing could be further from the truth though. In order to get along with others, the first thing you need to do is learn to get along with yourself. Only in this way will you succeed in developing healthy, solid relationships with others.

    Listen to your inner voice. Remember that inner voice that keeps whispering to you what you really want and need as well as what you do not really want and need. It is about time you started listening to it. In order to get to know yourself in depth, it is important to learn and accept what you want and what you do not want.

    Learn to enjoy your own company. You will be surprised to find out how many things you can do by yourself and actually have fun in the process. Reading romantic novels, poetry or science fiction is only a few of the things that you can do by yourself, which not only can offer you hours of enjoyment, but also the chance to get to know yourself better.

    Satisfy yourself. Pay special attention to your personal hygiene(卫生). Do your hair and nails often and experiment with new styles. Follow a healthy diet and exercise regularly to stay in good shape. No matter how busy your daily schedule is, always find at least an hour per day for yourself, when you can either relax doing absolutely nothing, or doing something that you enjoy most.

    Learn to respect your own boundaries. Find out what your boundaries are and learn to respect them. You are the only one who knows what you can accept and what you cannot.

    Gus Wenner runs Rollingstone.com; his father gave him the job. But Jann Wenner, the magazine's co­founder and publisher, was quick to assure critics of the appointment process that his son is terribly talented and had to prove himself before being given the post. Apparently Gus worked his way up from more junior positions with the company, and demonstrated, according to his father, the “drive and discipline and charm, and all the things that show leadership.” Gus Wenner is 22 years old.

    He is certainly not the only kid out of college, or even out of high school, working at daddy's firm. Family contacts are a common way of finding both temporary internships and longtime careers. Opportunities for the children of top 1 percent are not the same as they are for the 99 percent.

    This is hardly a shock, but it is precisely the type of inequality that reveals the hard­ to­ define promise of the “Just Do It” version of the American dream and deepens our cynicism(愤世嫉俗) about how people get ahead. As a consequence, it weakens support for public policies that could address the lack of upward mobility among children born at the bottom, who ought to be given priority. A strong tie between adult outcomes and family background annoys Americans. When an organization conducted a nationally representative survey asking about the meaning of “the American dream”， some typical answers included: “Being free to say or do what you want” and “Being free to accomplish almost anything you want with hard work.” but also “Being able to succeed regardless of the economic circumctances in which you were born.”

    This is exactly the reason that “the American dream” is not only a defining metaphor for the country, but also why Americans have long been willing to tolerate a good deal more economic inequality than citizens of many other rich countries. A belief in the possibility of upward mobility not only morally justifies inequality as the expression of talents and energies, but also extends a promise to those with lower incomes. After all, why would you be a strong advocate for reducing inequality if you believe that you, or eventually your children, were likely to climb the income ladder?

    Hard work and perseverance(毅力) will always be ingredients for success, but higher inequality has made having successful parents, if not essential, certainly a central part of the recipe.

    The belief that talent is something you are born with, and that opportunities are open to anyone with ambition and energy, also has a dangerous consequence. When the public policy is focused on the difficult situation of the poor, this belief can help the concept resurface that the poor are “undeserving” and are the authors of their own situation. Yet we actually know a good deal about why children of the poor have a higher chance of being stuck on poverty as adults.

    The recipes for breaking this intergenerational trap are clear: a nurturing(培养) environment in the early years combined with accessible and high­quality health care and education promote the capacities of young children, heighten the development of their skills as they grow older, and eventually raise their chances of upward mobility.

    Talent is nurtured and developed, and even genes are expressed differently depending upon environmental influences.

    The 1 percent are the goal for these upper­middle­class families, who after all have also experienced significant growth in their relative standing. The graduate and other higher degrees that they hold, for which they put in considerable effort, have put them on the upside of the wave of globalization and technical change that has transformed the American job market.

    An age of higher inequality gives them both more resources to promote the capacities of their children, and more encouragement to make these investments since their children now have all the more to gain.

    For them, an American dream based on effort and talent still lives, and as a result they are less likely, with their considerable cultural and political influence, to support the reshaping of American public policy to meet its most pressing need: the future of those at the bottom.

    Parallel worlds exist and interact with our world, say physicists.

    Quantum mechanics (量子力学), though firmly tested, is so weird and anti-intuitive that physicist Richard Feynman once remarked, “I think I can safely say nobody understands quantum mechanics.” Attempts to explain some of the bizarre (奇异的) consequences of quantum theory have led to some mind-bending ideas, such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation.

    Now there's a new theory on the block, called the “many interacting worlds” hypothesis (假设) (MIW), and the idea is just as profound as it sounds. The theory suggests not only parallel worlds exist, but that they interact with our world on the quantum level and are thus detectable. Though still speculative (推测的), the theory may help to finally explain some of the bizarre consequences inherent in quantum mechanics.

    The theory is a spinoff of the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics—an assumption that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual, though parallel, world. One problem with the many-worlds interpretation, however, has been that it is fundamentally untestable, since observations can only be made in our world. Happenings in these proposed “parallel” worlds can thus only be imagined.

    MIW, however, says otherwise. It suggests that parallel worlds can interact on the quantum level, and in fact that they do.

    “The idea of parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957,” explained Howard Wiseman, a physicist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, and one of the physicists to come up with MIW. “In the well-known 'Many-Worlds Interpretation', each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realized — in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid (小行星) missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonized by the Portuguese.”

    “But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all,” he added. “On this score, our 'Many Interacting Worlds' approach is completely different, as its name implies.”

    Wiseman and colleagues have proposed that there exists “a universal force of repulsion between 'nearby'(i.e. similar) worlds, which tends to make them more dissimilar.” Quantum effects can be explained by factoring in this force, they propose.

    When asked about whether their theory might imply that humans could someday interact with other worlds, Wiseman said: “It's not part of our theory. But the idea of human interactions with other universes is no longer pure fantasy.”

    What might your life look like if you made different choices? Maybe one day you'll be able to look into one of these alternative worlds and find out.

    Women may have good reason to drink coffee as much as they like. According to recent research, women who drank three or more cups of coffee a day were 30 percent less likely to have memory decline at age 65 than whose who drank one cup or less daily. And the benefit increased with age. Women over age 80 who drank three or more cups of coffee a day were about 70 percent less likely to have memory decline than those who drank one cup or less, the researchers said.

    Caffeinated tea had the same effect in the women, the study found, although more was needed to get the same caffeine boost. "Count roughly two cups of tea for a cup of coffee," said study leader Karen Ritchie of INSERM, the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research.

    But the researchers didn't find a similarly protective effect in men, although other studies have found a benefit to males.

    How might caffeine help ward off cognitive decline? "It is a cognitive stimulant." said Ritchie. "It also helps to reduce levels of the protein called beta amyloid in the brain" she said, "whose accumulation is responsible for Alzheimer's disease but which also occurs in normal aging."

    Ritchie said she wasn't sure why men in the study didn't benefit from caffeine. "Our hypothesis is that either women metabolize caffeine differently than men, or there may be an interaction of the caffeine with the sex hormones," she said.

    The French study confirms previous research, said William Scott, professor of medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, who has researched caffeine's beneficial effects against Parkinson's disease, also a neurodegenerative disorder.

    As for caffeine only protecting women, Scott noted that just 2,800 of the 7,000 study participants were men, and the results might have differed if more men were included.

    A study published in February in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked at 676 healthy men and found that regular coffee drinkers had a lower rate of cognitive decline over a 10-year follow-up than those who didn't drink coffee. Those who drank three cups daily had the least signs of decline.

    Both Scott and Ritchie agreed that more study is needed. Ritchie's research will next look at the relationship between caffeine and Alzheimer's.