Are you using a dating App to make friends? How do you know that Ben from London is really 25-year-old? Is his photo taken recently? Is his name even Ben? Dating apps can be tricky to operate, particularly when you're trying to know whether someone is trustworthy, but one thing you can't cheat is your gene, which is why a new dating app is using DNA as a basis for its match.

    A dating app named Pheramor requires all users to hand in a cheek sample, from which a team of in-house scientists using a specially-created tool can queue the specific genes connected with attraction and then identify which users might be suitable. The process works by separating the 11 genes that link to our pheromones（信息素）, the chemical signals that are believed to control one's attraction. Combining this data with the personal information allows the app to make very specific matches.

    “Pheramor uses both your biology and your social technology: we collect your genetic data through a cheek sample and collect your like, dislikes, and interest from your social media introductions like Facebook, Twitter, etc,” the app's website explains. “All of them will be used in our specific software, which is designed to learn what you prefer.”

    The co-founder Brittany Barreto, who has a PHD in genetics added that Pheramor's technology digs deeper than traditional dating apps, making it almost impossible for people to cheat their way to a date.

    The Houston-based app is already up and running but hopes to be officially put into market in February with 3,000 members.

    A great woman once said, “Women must try to do things as men have tried. When they fail, their failure must be a challenge to others. “These are the words of US pilot Amelia Earhart（1897- 1937）, a pioneer in aviation（航空领域）, who was the first woman to fly across the Atlantic Ocean

    Her story ended in mystery when she disappeared without a trace（踪迹）during a flight over the Pacific Ocean. Theories about what happened to Earhart were proposed, but nothing was ever confirmed—until now. A study published in March conducted by Richard Jantz from the University of Tennessee, US, determined that bones found in 1940 on a remote Pacific island belonged to Earhart. Following the discovery, the world's memories of the legendary female pilot were brought back to life.

    Earhart was born in 1897. When she was young, she was very interested in stories about women who were successful in male-dominated（男性为主的）professions, such as engineering and law. But in 1920, Earhart's life changed after her first experience of being a plane passenger. As soon as the plane left the ground, Earhart knew that she loved flying, so she found herself a teacher and started to learn how to fly for herself. To pay for the lessons and buy a plane of her own, she took all sorts of jobs.

    In 1932, Earhart flew solo（独自地）across the Atlantic, becoming the first woman ever to do so. She also designed a flying suit for women and went on to design other clothes for women who led active lives. When she was nearly 40, Earhart was ready for a final challenge—to be the first woman to fly around the world. Her first attempt was unsuccessful but she tried again in 1937 with her navigator（领航员）Fred Noonan. But one month later, they disappeared in bad weather in mid-flight.

    Even though it's still not clear how she ended up on the island, we're one step closer to finding the answer. And no matter what, Earhart will be forever remembered as a brave pioneer, both as a pilot and as a woman.

    In my class in middle school, there was a girl who was considered the outcast of our class. No one actually knows how this exclusion originated, but we all followed it for no reason at all. One day after lunch, we girls sat on the track field, talking about little things that happened in our little lives. Someone brought her up, and soon the topic transformed to mocking the funny texture of her hair, the awkward way she walked and… I felt extremely uncomfortable but kept silent, because I didn't want to be the one “supporting” the common enemy. After all, it's just a mild ranting session among a trusted group of friends, why should I bring unnecessary tension?

    Suddenly, one of my friends pointed her finger towards somewhere behind me. All of us turned around and saw that exact girl, hand still in the air, with a twisted look on her face. She lowered her hand in slow motion, blinked really hard for a few seconds, then turned around and ran off. For a second I wanted to stand up and chase her down to tell her that no one meant what they said, and that she is an amazing person being who she is. But my legs felt so heavy: I didn't want to make a fool out of myself—why bother taking care of the class clown（小丑）? People would think that I was crazy as well!

    No one spoke a word for a long time; we were all so caught up in our thoughts. I tried opening my mouth but couldn't—no words were coming out. Then one person started talking about the weather, and all of us were more than glad to follow this flow.

    A few weeks later, the teacher told us that a classmate dropped out of school—it was that girl. Her parents told the school that it was the peer pressure that made her want to leave. The teacher wanted to know who the bully was. Again, no one spoke a word. Perhaps it was exactly this cold, hard silence that drove her away. I certainly did not raise my hand—I had never even said anything bad about her; it was my friends who loved to make fun of her awkwardness every day.

    Surely, I didn't bully her physically or with my language, but I kept silent when others did. By failing to stand up for her and offering her support, I was giving tacit（心照不宣的）agreement. This agreement made others think that it was okay to mistreat her, because “no one cares anyways”. Perhaps I did realize I was bullying her—but by convincing myself that I had nothing to do with her leaving, I wouldn't have to bear the burden of heavy shame on my shoulders.

    Real life is not like a Hollywood movie, and the protagonists don't always have the courage to compensate for our mistakes. In that classroom, my feet were glued to the ground once again, thinking of all the possibilities that could embarrass me in front of the whole class. What if she doesn't appreciate my effort and just walk off? What if she misunderstands my actions as sympathy and gets upset? Worst of all, what if my own group mates disapprove of my decision? Am I really willing to risk my friendship just to help out one girl that I've seldom spoken to?

    To be honest, I still don't have answers to these questions. I don't know if the answers to those questions even exist. However, what I do know is that nothing will change if I keep thinking and never take actions. Talking to someone in need of support would mean the world to them, while it takes little to none effort for me. So what if those actions are under appreciated? At least I will be satisfied knowing that I did the right thing.

    Our most important institutions, our schools and our workplaces, are designed mostly for extroverts (性格外向者).

In the typical classroom, students are often divided into groups—four or five or more kids all facing each other. And kids are working on countless group assignments. Even in subjects like math and creative writing, which you think would depend on unaccompanied flights of thought, kids are now expected to act as committee members. As for the kids who prefer to go off by themselves or just to work alone, those kids are seen as outliers (局外人) often or, worse, as problem cases. And the vast majority of teachers believe that the ideal student is an extrovert as opposed to an introvert (性格内向者), even though introverts actually get better grades and are more knowledgeable, according to research.

The same thing is true in our workplaces. Now, most of us work in open plan offices, without walls, where we are subject to the constant noise and stare of our coworkers. And when it comes to leadership, introverts are routinely passed over for leadership positions, even though introverts tend to be very careful, much less likely to take outsize risks —which is something we might all favor nowadays. And interesting research by Adam Grant at the Wharton School has found that introverted leaders often deliver better outcomes than extroverts do, because when they are managing thoughtful employees, they're much more likely to let those employees run with their ideas.

    In fact, some of our great leaders in history have been introverts. I'll give you some examples. Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Gandhi -- all these people described themselves as quiet and soft-spoken and even shy. However, they all took the spotlight, even though every bone in their bodies was telling them not to. And this turns out to have a special power, because people could feel that these leaders were in control, not because they enjoyed directing others and not out of the pleasure of being looked at; they were there because they had no choice, because they were driven to do what they thought was right.

    America's businesses are getting older and fatter, while many new businesses are dying in infancy.

    A study last month by the Brookings Institution found that the proportion of older firms has grown steadily over several decades, while the survival rate of new companies has fallen. In addition, young people are starting companies at a sharply lower rate than in the past.

    A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers shows a major cause: The cost of obeying government regulations has risen to more than $2 trillion (12.26 trillion yuan) annually, or 12 percent of the GDP, and this cost falls disproportionately on smaller, newer businesses.

    It's risky, difficult and expensive to start a business, and getting more so. Governments are imposing various new rules on a seemingly daily basis: health insurance, minimum wage increases and, most recently in California, compulsory paid sick days for even hourly employees. These regulations shift huge social welfare costs directly onto often-struggling small businesses, while being proportionally much less costly for larger companies.

This is partly an unintended issue of resources—established companies can cope with new costs more easily—but it's also deliberate. For instance, big insurance companies got a seat at the table to help write Obama care, but less politically powerful firms—like medical device manufacturers—got squeezed.

    Mature, successful corporations can employ ex-lawmakers with connections, distribute campaign contributions and even write regulations for themselves. They are also more likely to want to protect steady revenue streams than revolutionize their industry.

Major companies that have been so ill-managed they would otherwise collapse—airlines, car companies and banks—stagger(蹒跚)on because politicians ride to the rescue with bags of taxpayer money.

    The genius of our unique system of government is the determination to protect and defend the rights of the individual over the rights of the nation. As such, the rise of a well-connected oligarchy(寡头政治)that protects big business at the expense of small business, and the established over the new, is opposite to American ideals.

Income inequalitywhich is directly caused by faulty government policy—is being promoted as the reason to impose more of that bad policy. But let's be perfectly clear, we do not have a free market but one where government picks winners and losers through regulations and financial aids.

    Politics is, and always has been, about balancing competing interests seeking to benefit themselves, and that's as it should be, but the force of government should never be used to reduce competition, kill innovation or support and extend artificial monopolies(垄断)by harming the consumer, the taxpayer and the economy. Policy must breed our new and small businesses or see the as-yet undreamed of innovations that could be our bright future die in infancy.

    Give yourself a test. Which way is the wind blowing? How many kinds of wildflowers can be seen from your front door? If your awareness is as sharp as it could be, you'll have no trouble answering these questions.

    Most of us observed much more as children than we do as adults. A child's day is filled with fascination, newness and wonder. Curiosity gave us all a natural awareness. But distinctions that were sharp to us as children become unclear; we are numb(麻木的）to new stimulation(刺激), new ideas. Relearning the art of seeing the world around us is quite simple, although it takes practice and requires breaking some bad habits.

    The first step in awakening senses is to stop predicting what we are going to see and feel before it occurs. This blocks awareness. One chilly night when I was hiking in the Rocky Mountains with some students, I mentioned that we were going to cross a mountain stream. The students began complaining about how cold it would be. We reached the stream, and they unwillingly walked ahead. They were almost knee-deep when they realized it was a hot spring. Later they all admitted they'd felt cold water at first.

    Another block to awareness is the obsession(痴迷) many of us have with naming things. I saw bird watchers who spotted a bird, immediately looked it up in field guides, and said, a "ruby-crowned kinglet" and checked it off. They no longer paid attention to the bird and never learned what it was doing.

    The pressures of "time" and "destination" are further blocks to awareness. I encountered many hikers who were headed to a distant camp-ground with just enough time to get there before dark. It seldom occurred to them to wander a bit, to take a moment to see what's around them. I asked them what they'd seen. "Oh, a few birds," they said. They seemed bent on their destinations.

    Nature seems to unfold to people who watch and wait. Next time you take a walk, no matter where it is, take in all the sights, sounds and sensations. Wander in this frame of mind and you will open a new dimension to your life.