At the beginning of the century there was a big farm called Hollywood Ranch. It was near Los Angeles in California. A few years later Hollywood was one of the famous places in the world. From the 1910s to the 1950s Hollywood was the film center of the world. Every family knew the names of its film stars—Charlie Chaplin，Greta Garbo，Bergman and hundreds more.

    The reason why people went to Hollywood to make films was the sun. At first people made films in New York on the east coast of the United States. But then they heard about Los Angeles where there are 350 days of sun every year. As they made all the films by sunlight，the west coast was a much better place to work. Also near Hollywood you can find mountains and sea and desert. They did not have to travel far to make any kind of film.

    When TV became popular，Hollywood started making films for television. Then in 1970s they discovered people still went to the cinema to see big expensive films. After twenty years they are still making films in Hollywood and people watch them all over the world.

    Forests are always losers at the Olympics, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

    For the winter games in PyeongChang, South Korea, virgin forest was destroyed on Mount Gariwang to accommodate ski runs. For the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, a ski run is set to wipe out part of the Songshan National Nature Reserve. And let's not forget the 240 acres of Atlantic Forest that were leveled for the 2016 games in Rio de Janeiro to make way for a golf course.

    For the upcoming Tokyo games, environmental and human rights advocates have been raising alarms about the use of tropical (热带的) wood to build the New National stadium. Activists have fought against such environmental destruction. The damage is often permanent, threatens endangered plants and animals and in some cases, causes conflicts with native people. But frequently the country's organizing committee, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have found ways to make it reasonable — despite a paragraph in the Olympic Charter (宪章) that states that the IOC's role is to "encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues".

    "As it stands now, the IOC has little authority over a city's local organizing committee, which finally plans the event, " Chappelet, professor of public management at the University of Lausanne, told Earther. "Even if the IOC is dissatisfied with the way host cities have prepared for the games, they have no built-in systems to watch them so that they strictly follow the Olympic Charter." The only thing they can do if they're not happy is to withdraw (= take back) the right to organize the game. "But the IOC could include more enforcement (执行) systems into the contract they make with the host city," he added. That contract must be signed and obeyed by everyone and those who break it must be fined.

    Boykoff, the author of several books on the Olympics, suggested a similar solution. "The IOC could insist that host cities take their ecological (生态的) promises into account first, but instead they look the other way, time and time again," he said.

    How many times do you check your Facebook page in a day to see whether your latest post has got another “like” or “thumbs(拇指) up”?

    Although you might be embarrassed to admit how many times you do this, don't worry—psychological findings have shown it's completely normal. In fact, the pleasure we derive from receiving a “like” is equal to that of eating chocolate or winning money, and we can't help wanting more. According to the findings, which observed 32 teens aged between 13 and 18, the feedback circuit (反馈回路) in the teens' brains is particularly sensitive, and the “social” and “visual” parts of their brains were active when they received “likes” on the social network. The research also showed that though the thumbs up might come from complete strangers, the good they derive from them worked all the same.

    So, does it mean we should try our best to win as many thumbs up as possible? Not necessarily so if we know the reasons behind our desire for attention. In “why do people long for attention” by M. Farouk Radwan, he explained several cases in which people naturally longed for attention. Radwan said people who were an only child, who were used to being the center of attention in their house, may try to copy these conditions. Feeling “overlooked and unappreciated” might also lead you to long for attention. Other times, the state of being jealous, or wanting to cover your mistakes may also contribute to such longings.

    In fact, too much desire for attention can create anxiety, and in turn ruin your happiness even when you get it. So what can we do about it? The answer is quite simple. “If people could adopt goals not focused on their own self-esteem（自尊）but on something larger than their self, such as what they can create or contribute to others, they would be less sensitive to some of the negative effects of pursuing self-esteem,” wrote psychology professor Jennifer Crocker.

    So perhaps the answer to our addiction to “likes” is simply to focus on something larger than ourselves—a hard, but a worthy one.

    The values of artistic works, according to cultural relativism(相对主义), are simply reflections of local social and economic conditions. Such a view, however, fails to explain the ability of some works of art to excite the human mind across cultures and through centuries.

    History has witnessed the endless productions of Shakespearean plays in every major language of the world. It is never rare to find that Mozart packs Japanese concert halls, as Japanese painter Hiroshige does Paris galleries, Unique works of this kind are different from today's popular art, even if they began as works of popular art. They have set themselves apart in their timeless appeal and will probably be enjoyed for centuries into the future.

    In a 1757 essay, the philosopher David Hume argued that because" the general principles of taste are uniform(不变的) in human nature," the value of some works of art might be essentially permanent. He observed that Homer was still admired after two thousand years. Works of this type, he believed, spoke to deep and unvarying features of human nature and could continue to exist over centuries.

    Now researchers are applying scientific methods to the study of the universality of art. For example, evolutionary psychology is being used by literary scholars to explain the long-lasting themes and plot devices in fiction. The structures of musical pieces are now open to experimental analysis as never before. Research findings seem to indicate that the creation by a great artist is as permanent an achievement as the discovery by a great scientist.

    Half a year ago I came across a book called "Salt, Sugar and Fat. How the Food Giants Hooked US", but finished it only recently. I am far from being a fan of junk food, over-salty, or over-sweet stuff, and honestly this food doesn't appeal to me at all. Maybe it is related to the fact that I grew up in Russia and at that time we were not so exposed to the foreign, especially made in America foods. We knew Coca Cola, Pepsi, juice powder and Cheetos, but this stuff was not so cheap or available to buy it every day and we couldn't buy them in large quantities. We didn't know the word "fat" was not a bad thing but a normal of life for some people. We always had sweets and especially on holidays they were served as a dessert along with a cake. Russians like eating sweets when they drink tea. Even with my passion to desserts I still can't relate myself to the people Michale Moss was writing about, those consumers who could not say “no” when it came to junk food.

    What I found interesting in the book was that the author didn't focus on diets, necessity to exercise, sleep well at night and all other things we all are pretty aware of. The aim was not to teach people how to live but instead, after having made a huge research, interviewed more than 100 people in the food industry, Moss reveals the ugly of the food business. It puts all the facts in front of us and offers a choice: to buy or not to buy. However, the answer was known at the very beginning. Moss mentions the well-known food like Coca, Cola, Pepsi, Nestle and some others and tells how skillfully the consumers can be cheated when it comes to choosing what to put in the food basket in the supermarket. We like this taste of a chocolate, the crispy chips, and sweet porridges because it was all put on test by groups of scientists who made experiments to reveal what kind of taste will be most appealing to us. It involves brain, of course. Apart from scientific researches, it was also due to successful marketing strategies and plans that people prefer to buy food.

    In this companies' money race, the most vulnerable(易受伤害的)victims are kids. They can't tell good from bad and love everything that makes them feel good. Commercial ads of fast food particularly targeted kids and played on the fact that mothers can't fully control what their children eat because they spent all day at work. Mothers themselves buy chocolates bars and com flakes for their kids, guided by a powerful brainwashing that actually, these products were not unhealthy, on the contrary, it was encouraged to give them to kids, because fat and sugar provide energy, so they are good, right?

    Giving a credit to some food companies, they made attempts to fight the trend, but consumers, who already worked a habit of eating too salty, too fatting and too sweet products, didn't react to the changes. So the companies returned to the old policy. Surprisingly, such behavior was strongly backed up by the government.

    I would definitely recommend reading this book not only to those who struggle in the battle with his addiction to fast food but also people living healthily. It casts light on many things, including how vulnerable we can be in front of corporations and their powerful and accurate marketing strategies.