Journey in Life: 03/22/17

Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

"Die behind the wheel" nghĩa là gì?

Photo courtesy Dino Kužnik.

'Die behind the wheel' = chết sau tay lái -> nghĩa là chết khi đang lái xe, tử vong do tai nạn xe cộ (to die in an automobile accident in a car that one is driving).

Ví dụ
Idaho is seeing more and more people die behind the wheel because of alcohol.

The advent of the smartphone sent us over the top. I now routinely ask auto executives when they — the experts on what causes people to die behind the wheel — are going to push back against the tech industry and its obvious agenda to keep us ceaselessly glued to our phones (defensive driving is no match for push notifications). I usually get a very ambivalent answer to that one.

About 1 in 5 organs used for transplants come from car crash deaths. If self-driving cars mean fewer people die behind the wheel, what does that mean for the organ shortage? Roughly 6,500 people in the U.S. die waiting for an organ transplant every year. That doesn't even include those cut from the list because they're "too sick." The bright side is that technology is working on alternatives. Scientists have found a way to genetically engineer pig DNA so those organs could eventually be safe and dependable to use in humans.

Phạm Hạnh

Hoảng loạn 1907

Phố Wall trong đợt hoảng loạn ngân hàng tháng 10 năm 1907

Bài trước: Bạo động Haymarket

Bởi SoerfmTác phẩm do chính người tải lên tạo ra, CC BY-SA 3.0, Liên kết

Bạo động Haymarket

The Haymarket Riot

Bởi Harper's Weekly –, Phạm vi công cộng, Liên kết

Năm người con lớn của Charles I của Anh

Năm người con lớn của Charles I, 1637. Từ trái sang phải: Mary, James, Charles, Elizabeth và Anne.

Bởi Anthony van DyckrgETLGbnb2EzxQ at Google Cultural Institute maximum zoom level, Phạm vi công cộng, Liên kết

Charles I của Anh bị sỉ nhục bởi tướng sĩ của Cromwell

Một bức tranh khác của Delaroche, Charles I bị sỉ nhục bởi tướng sĩ của Cromwell, là một câu chuyện ngụ ngôn cho sự kiện tương tự ở Pháp 144 năm sau và sự chế nhạo chúa.

Cromwell và thi thể Charles I của Anh

Cromwell được cho là đã đến chỗ thi thể Charles, nói rằng "Sự tàn ác cần thiết!". Câu chuyện được thuật lại bởi Delaroche vào thể kỷ 19.

Cromwell and the corpse of Charles I

Bởi Paul Delaroche –, Phạm vi công cộng, Liên kết

Charles I của Anh trước trận Edgehill

Một bức tranh vào thế kỉ XIX miêu tả Charles (ở giữa khung kính màu xanh) trước trận Edgehill, 1642

King Charles I stands centre wearing the blue sash of the Order of the Garter; Prince Rupert of the Rhine is sat next to him and Lord Lindsey stands next to the king resting his commander's baton against the map. The Prince of Wales (later Charles II) and the Duke of York (later James II) are the two boys behind Prince Rupert's back. The standard-bearer is Sir Edmund Verney.

Bài trước: Charles I của Anh

Bởi Charles Landseer (1799 - 1879) (British)Born in London, England. Dead in London, England.Details of artist on Google Art ProjectXQGUNMAEYfaXKw at Google Cultural Institute maximum zoom level, Phạm vi công cộng, Liên kết

Charles I của Anh

Charles depicted as a victorious and chivalrous Saint George in an English landscape by Rubens, 1629–30.

Bởi Peter Paul RubensWeb Gallery of Art:   Image  Info about artwork, Phạm vi công cộng, Liên kết

Sự ngưng trệ của nước Mỹ

Disruption. This is the big buzzword when it comes to startups and Silicon Valley. Many of the top tech businesses today have caused major disruptions in their industries – from Uber, to Airbnb, and even Facebook, these tech giants are changing the game. However, if we peer outside of this small window, the narrative of fast-paced innovation and a rapid rise in startups falters.

In fact, the rate of startups forming has trended lower and lower beginning in the 1980s. Younger firms are also less likely to become successes than they have been in the past. Outside the sphere of the few highly-visible companies that have made strides in improving our standard of living, the U.S. economy is stagnating.

Lots of older firms with a lower rate of new ones starting up means fewer jobs are being created and destroyed. Established firms are enjoying a larger share of the market. Giants are sitting on their piles of cash, and sometimes acquiring other large firms, instead of investing in new ideas. This lack of dynamism shows in productivity growth, which has mostly been on the decline since 1973.

For employment, fewer young firms means less job mobility. People are, again contrary to the usual narrative, staying in the same jobs for longer than ever before. And that slowdown in productivity growth shows up in places like real wages. In fact, if the U.S. had continued at pre-1973 productivity growth, the median American household income would be about $30,000 higher.

Finally, U.S. federal revenue is increasingly on auto pilot. In 1962, roughly 65% of federal revenue fell under “fiscal discretion,” allowing for new allocations each year. Today, the vast majority of federal revenue is wrapped up in predetermined spending like debt, Medicaid, social security, and Medicare. By 2022, less than 10% of U.S. federal revenue might be considered discretionary.

All of these factors lead to a more “boxed in,” less flexible, less dynamic economy. This is not an advantageous position – living standards are increasing more slowly, sowing seeds of discontent, and it’s difficult for a federal government with little discretionary spending to respond to a crisis.

In upcoming videos, we’ll look at some of the discontent currently happening in the U.S. and what might happen if a crisis were to occur and our lives were to be truly disrupted during this time of economic stagnation.

Kỷ nguyên mới của sự phân biệt

Do you live in a “bubble?” There’s a good chance that the answer is, at least in part, a resounding “Yes.”

In our algorithm-driven world, digital servants cater to our individual preferences like never before. This has caused many improvements to our daily lives. For example, instead of gathering the kids together for a frustrating Blockbuster trip to pick out a VHS for family movie night, you can simply scroll through kid-friendly titles on Netflix that have been narrowed down based on your family’s previous viewing history. Not so bad.

But this algorithmic matching isn’t limited to entertainment choices. We’re also getting matched to spouses of a similar education level and earning potential. More productive workers are able to get easily matched to more productive firms. On the individual level, this is all very good. Our digital servants are helping us find better matches and improving our lives.

What about at the macro level? All of this matching can also produce more segregation – but on a much broader level than just racial segregation. People with similar income and education levels, and who do similar types of work, are more likely to cluster into their own little bubbles. This matching has consequences, and they’re not all virtual.

Power couples and highly productive workers are concentrating in metropolises like New York City and San Francisco. With many high earners, lots of housing demand, and strict building codes, rents in these types of cities are skyrocketing. People with lower incomes simply can no longer afford the cost of living, so they leave. New people with lower incomes also aren’t coming in, so we end up with a type of self-reinforcing segregation.

If you think back to the 2016 U.S. election, you’ll remember that most political commentators, who tend to reside in trendy large cities, were completely shocked by the rise of Donald Trump. What part did our new segregation play in their inability to understand what was happening in middle America?

In terms of racial segregation, there are worrying trends. The variety and level of racism of we’ve seen in the past may be on the decline, but the data show less residential racial mixing among whites and minorities.

Why does this matter? For a dynamic economy, mixing a wide variety of people in everyday life is crucial for the development of ideas and upward mobility. If matching is preventing mixing, we have to start making intentional changes to improve socio-economic integration and bring dynamism back into the American economy.

Bài trước: Giới tự mãn

Giới tự mãn

Restlessness has long been seen as a signature trait of what it means to be American. We've been willing to cross great distances, take big risks, and adapt to change in way that has produced a dynamic economy. From Ben Franklin to Steve Jobs, innovation has been firmly rooted in American DNA.

What if that's no longer true?

Let’s take a journey back to the 19th century – specifically, the Chicago World’s Fair of 1893. At that massive event, people got to do things like ride a ferris wheel, go on a moving sidewalk, see a dishwasher, see electric light, or even try modern chewing gum for the very first time. More than a third of the entire U.S. population at that time attended. And remember, this was 1893 when travel was much more difficult and costly.

Fairs that shortly followed Chicago included new inventions and novelties the telephone, x-ray machine, hot dogs, and ice cream cones.

These earlier years of American innovation were filled with rapid improvement in a huge array of industries. Railroads, electricity, telephones, radio, reliable clean water, television, cars, airplanes, vaccines and antibiotics, nuclear power – the list goes on – all came from this era.

After about the 1970s, innovation on this scale slowed down. Computers and communication have been the focus. What we’ve seen more recently has been mostly incremental improvements, with the large exception of smart phones.

This means that we’ve experienced a ton of changes in our virtual world, but surprisingly few in our physical world. For example, travel hasn’t much improved and, in some cases, has even slowed down. The planes we’re primarily using? They were designed half a century ago.

Since the 1960s, our culture has gotten less restless, too. It’s become more bureaucratic. The sixties and seventies ushered in a wave of protests and civil disobedience. But today, people hire protests planners and file for permits. The demands for change are tamer compared to their mid-century counterparts.

This might not sound so bad. We’ve entered a golden age for many of our favorite entertainment options. Americans are generally better off than ever before. But the U.S. economy is less dynamic. We’re stagnating. We’re complacent. What does mean for our economic and cultural future?

Thằng đi dạy thêm, đứa làm tiếp thị

Photo courtesy Alessandra.

A man's growth is seen in the successive choirs of his friends.
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sự phát triển của một người có thể thấy được trong bản đồng ca không ngớt của bạn bè người đó.

Bài trước: Bước lang thang tìm em qua phố cũ

Popular Now