While the U.S. is still debating about getting rid of the penny, Sweden is rapidly moving towards abolishing currency altogether. Though this may sound radical(过激的), it is a natural evolution in this digital society.

    Sweden, which was the first European country to introduce banknotes in 1661, has just been working harder to convince its residents that digital payments are a safer alternative to carrying cash.

Over the years, the idea has gained popularity with residents, especially the younger generation that is much more comfortable with technology. Today many banks don't even have ATMs and some have stopped handling cash altogether!

    Tickets to ride public buses in most Swedish cities can only be purchased via cell phones. Numerous businesses are also moving towards accepting only digital payments. Even the homeless that sell street paper to make ends meet have to start accepting this mode of payment!

But despite its growing popularity, some people don't like this radical idea. They include the homeless, elderly people as well as those living in rural areas who are still uncomfortable with mobile phones and computers. But the officials are confident that in the very near future, they will be able to convince everyone to move this safe and more cost-effective payment system.

    Sweden is not the only country trying to abolish paper currency and coins. The movement is rapidly gaining ground in Denmark and Finland as well. In 2014, Israel announced a three-step plan to go cashless and just last week the vendors(小贩)of a popular street in Sydney declared they would stop accepting currency from customers. Whether this phenomenon spreads remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure—With increasingly advanced payment systems being introduced every day, pulling out cash is rapidly becoming “uncool”.

    Are some people born clever, and others born stupid? Or is intelligence developed by our environment and our experience? Strangely enough, the answer to these questions is yes. To some degree our intelligence is given to us at birth, and no amount of education can make a genius out of a child born with low intelligence. On the other hand, a child who lives in a boring environment will develop his intelligence less than one who lives in rich and varied surroundings. Thus the limits of person's intelligence are fixed at birth, whether or not he reaches those limits will depend on his environment. This view, now held by most experts, can be supported in a number of ways.

    It is easy to show that intelligence is to some degree something we are born with. The closer the blood relationship between two people, the closer they are likely to be intelligent. Thus if we take two unrelated people at random from population, it is likely that their degree of intelligence will be completely different. If, on the other hand, we take two identical twins, they will very likely be as intelligent as each other. Relations like brothers and sisters, parents and children, usually have similar intelligence, and this clearly suggests that intelligence depends on birth. Imagine now that we take two identical twins and put them in different environments. We might send one, for example, to a university and the other to a factory where the work is boring. We would soon find differences in intelligence developing, and this indicates that environment as well as birth plays a part. This conclusion is also suggested by the fact that people who live in close contact with each other, but who are not related at all are likely to have similar degree of intelligence.

    Long before iPhone, the cigarette was the companion of choice for restlessness. And long before Facebook and WeChat, it was tobacco that promised to better your social life. Now, quitting smartphones has become the new quitting smoking.

    Of course, technology does not yellow your teeth, cause disease or lead to cancer. But some individuals are so concerned that device addiction is damaging their mental health. In order to reduce their dependence, even in Silicon Valley, people are turning off the messages that constantly buzz for their attention, banning smartphones from the bedroom and, curiously, changing the colors on their screens to a less tempting scale of gray.

    The big tech companies will have to work out how to respond to this new generation of quitters. Facebook is the first to go public with its attempt, hoping its recent move can make the social network more homely.

Last year the tech industry got a bad name —Big Tech—with unfortunate echoes of other industries that have faced fierce opposition, including Big Tobacco. Like them, the tech industry has to reduce concern from a new generation of activist shareholders （股东） that are questioning its role in the world. These campaigns are never as fierce as those faced by Big Tobacco. In the 1990s, socially responsible investors refused to put money in tobacco stocks.

    It is far difficult for investors to challenge Big Tech and hard to separate the good these companies do in the world-connecting old friends and giving space for people to share their ideas-from the bad. In the meantime, stopping using technology remains problematic. In The World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech, Franklin Foer argues that tech should be seen in a similar way to junk food: a convenience that some reject for more continuing nutrition.

    So we need to do more to turn the tide. In the same way that public service announcements made smoking around your children taboo （禁忌）, we can warn parents against losing themselves in their smartphones while taking care of kids. We can also create no-smartphone zones at dinner. Eventually smartphones could be banned from all public places and help us give our attention to the people around us instead.

    March 21 has been declared World Sleep Day, a time to recognize and celebrate the value of sleep. Many sleep experts hope it will be a wake-up call.

    According to a poll (民意调查) by the National Sleep Foundation, nearly 4 in 5 Americans don't get as much sleep as they should during the workweek. On average, adults are thought to need at least eight hours of sleep a night, although some can manage with less and some won't do well without more. But the survey found that, on weekdays, only 21% of Americans actually get a full eight hours of sleep, and another 21% get less than six hours.

    To many of us, the thought of spending more time sleeping is, well, a big yawn. On the other hand, the thought of being smarter, thinner, healthier and more cheerful has a certain appeal. And those are just a few of the advantages that can be ours if we consistently get enough sleep, researchers say. Also on the plus side: We're likely to have better skin, better memories, better judgment, and, oh, yes, longer lives.

    “When you lose even one hour of sleep for any reason, it influences your performance the next day,” says Dr. Alon Avidan, director of the UCLA Sleep Disorders Center.

    A study published last year found the same to be true even of children. When kids aged 8 to 12 slept for just one hour less for four nights, they didn't function as well during the day.

    But sleeping has an image problem.“We see napping or sleeping as lazy,” says Jennifer Vriend, a clinical psychologist in Ottawa, Canada, and the leading author of the study with children.“We put so much emphasis on diet, nutrition and exercise. Sleep is in the back seat. In fact,”she adds,“no matter how much we work out, no matter how well we eat, we can't be in top physical shape unless we also get plenty of sleep.”

    I study English literature at university and have always been proud of Britain's literary heritage(文学遗产). Some British authors that you may have heard of are Charles Dickens and Jane Austen. These writers are famous all over the world because their books have been translated into many different languages. In the UK, their novels are celebrated as some of the best that have ever been written. We say that these novels are "classic" because they are still read and enjoyed years after their publication.

    I read classic novels because they are part of my university lessons but also because I enjoy them. They can teach you a lot about how people used to live and what society was like in the past. Novels like Hard Times by Charles Dickens remind us of the poverty in London during the Industrial Revolution while Jane Austen's fiction shows us what family life was like in the 18th century.

    Classic novels usually have memorable stories land interesting characters. One of my favourite books is Charles Dickens Great Expectations. It is about a boy called Pip who suddenly receives a lot of money from a mysterious supporter. As he grows up, his character changes: he becomes quite selfish and mean. Another important character is Miss Havisham. When she was young, her fiancé ran away on their wedding day. She lives in a dark house and still wears her wedding dress. She is a fascinating character, both sad and scary.

    Reading classic novels enriches my knowledge and life experience. And it has become part of life.

    Regardless of how far we'd like to believe gender (性别) equality in the workplace has come, there's still a yawning gap between male and female leaders in the professional world. A 2018 statistic showed that women nowadays hold just 5.8 percent of CEOS positions at S&P 500 companies, according to Catalyst.

    While it's not a huge shock that women are somewhat underrepresented in leadership positions, what is surprising though, is the fact that females may actually be better suited to lead in almost every area, at least according to new findings from the BI Norwegian Business School.

    In their research, Professor Oyvind L. Martinsen and Professor Lars Glas surveyed 2,900 managers with a special focus on personality types. The results were clear: Women scored higher than men in four of the five major leadership-centric categories while some people believe that men inherently make better leaders—probably because they picture a leader with a commanding voice, which is more typical of men than women—this is piece of research suggests that women are better at methodical management and goal-setting, openness, sociability and supportiveness, as well as ability to communicate clearly.

    There was one area in which men scored higher than women, though, and that was on emotional stability and ability to face job-related pressure and stress. The results suggested that women are more sensitive to the effects of high-pressure or highly emotional situations.

    Obviously, it's important to consider individual (个人的) differences. Anyone, regardless of gender, may be an inspiring leader and a competent boss. But next time you're hiring for a management position, you just might want to give the resumes(简历) from female candidates a harder look.