Bad news sells. If it bleeds, it leads. No news is good news, and good news is no news. Those are the classic rules for the evening broadcasts and the morning papers. But now that information is being spread and monitored（监控）in different ways, researchers are discovering new rules. By tracking people's e-mails and online posts, scientists have found that good news can spread faster and farther than disasters and sob stories.

    “The 'if it bleeds' rule works for mass media,” says Jonah Berger, a scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. “They want your eyeballs and don't care how you're feeling. But when you share a story with your friends, you care a lot more how they react. You don't want them to think of you as a Debbie Downer.”

    Researchers analyzing word-of-mouth communication-e-mails, Web posts and reviews, face-to-face conversations-found that it tended to be more positive than negative, but that didn't necessarily mean people preferred positive news. Was positive news shared more often simply because people experienced more good things than bad things? To test for that possibility, Dr. Berger looked at how people spread a particular set of news stories: thousands of articles on The New York Times' website. He and a Penn colleague analyzed the “most e-mailed” list for six months. One of his first findings was that articles in the science section were much more likely to make the list than non-science articles. He found that science amazed Times' readers and made them want to share this positive feeling with others.

    Readers also tended to share articles that were exciting or funny, or that inspired negative feelings like anger or anxiety, but not articles that left them merely sad. They needed to be aroused（激发）one way or the other, and they preferred good news to bad. The more positive an article, the more likely it was to be shared, as Dr. Berger explains in his new book, “Contagious: Why Things Catch On.”

    The popular wisdom for years has been that drinking in moderation (适度)—that's one “standard” drink a day for women and two for men-is linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular (心血管的) disease. But recent studies are casting some doubt on that long-held learning. Science now says it depends on your age and drinking habits.

    A 2017 study of nearly 2 million British with no cardiovascular risk found that there was still a modest benefit in moderate drinking, especially for women over 55 who drank five drinks a week. Why that age? Alcohol can influence the substance in the blood in positive ways, experts say, and that's about the age when heart problems begin to occur.

    Also, a 2018 study found that drinking more than 100 grams of alcohol per week—equal to roughly seven standard drinks in the United States or five to six glasses of wine in the UK—increases your risk of death from all causes and in turn lowers your life expectancy. Links were found with different forms of cardiovascular disease, with people who drank more than 100 grams per week having a higher risk of stroke, heart failure.

    Another 2018 study found that consistently drinking a moderate amount of alcohol, within recommended guidelines, had a protective effect on the heart over time. Unstable drinking habits were associated with a higher risk of heart disease, which the authors reflected might indicate broader lifestyle changes, such as poor health or stress. Former drinkers were also at greater risk.

    Overall, however, the latest thinking is that any heart benefit may be outweighed by other health risks, such as high blood pressure, certain cancers and liver damage.

Women who drink are at a higher risk for breast cancer; alcohol contributes about 6% of the overall risk, possibly because it raises certain dangerous hormones in the blood. Drinking can also increase the chance you might develop liver, mouth and oral cancers. One potential reason: Alcohol weakens our immune systems, making us more likely to inflame (发炎)—a driving force behind cancer.

    From Madrid to Buenos Aires to Panama City to Lisbon, President Xi Jinping has tirelessly promoted the building of a community of shared future for mankind, and the Belt and Road Initiative(倡议) as a means to achieve that.

    But all don't see it that way. While some are quick to see its positive potentials, other countries insist on viewing it skeptically. There have been the usual doubts about the intention behind, although the mysterious threat they speak of is one they seem unable to explain clearly.

    To some of them, it is a vague assumption that investments from China are potential "debt traps" that call for extreme caution or "threats to national security". That is why the business combinations involving Chinese companies which would be mutually(相互地)beneficial have hit the rocks. The Chinese telecommunications technology giant Huawei, for instance, has found the doors to the 5G telecommunications markets of advanced countries closed to it on "national security" grounds. Likewise, the European Union has agreed on a framework regulating foreign investment(投资) particularly those from China on the same account.

    Even as Chinese and Portuguese leaders discuss bilateral(双边的)cooperation under the Belt and Road, there is no lack of concern about "Chinas influence". But existing EU rules do not forbid Lisbon from seeking such a partnership. If Lisbon sees no harm from foreign investment, no outsider is in a position to prevent it from making a choice in its own best interests.

    Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa has reminded EU decision-makers of his country's desire for foreign investment, and advised the latter to avoid taking "the path of protectionism". It was a timely reminder.

    Facing the challenges in today's world, China and the countries that have embraced the Belt and Road are convinced it is the way to common development and the world's lasting peace and stability.

Everyone has a phone in their pocket nowadays, but how often do we really use them for their original purpose-to make a call? Telephone culture is disappearing. What brought us to this moment, and what are its effects?

"No one picks up the phone anymore," wrote Alex C. Madrigal on The Atlantic. The reflex of answering-centu20^th—telephonic culture—is gone."

The shift is of course due in large part to more communication options: Texting with photos, videos, emojis, reaction gifs, links and even voice messages can be a more attractive option.

Texting is light and fun, not nearly as demanding of your attention as a phone call. It can also be done with multiple people at the same time. Social media, email and video calls have also eaten away at traditional phone calls.

In recent years, another reason has caused people to ignore phone calls completely: robocalls. Robocalls are automate messages from organizations verifying your phone number or telemarketers trying to sell something. Americans received 22.8 billion robocalls halfway through 2020, equaling an annual rate of 45.6 billion, slightly below 2018 numbers, according to YouMail, a robocall protection service and blocking app.

As telephone culture disappears, what is the loss of a singular family phone doing to the family unit? Early landline phones unified family members, whereas mobile phones isolate them.

"The shared family phone served as an anchor for home," said Luke Fernandez, a Weber State University computer-science professor and co-author of Bored, Lonely, Angry, Stupid: Feelings About Technology, From the Telegraph to Twitter. "With smartphones we have gained mobility and privacy. But the value of the home has been diminished, as has its ability to guide and monitor family behavior and perhaps connect families more closely," Fernandez said.

Of course, as technology progresses, lives always change for better or for worse. With the loss of telephone culture, families will need to find other ways to unite.