Watches tell us time. Many people let watches【C1】________to them when to do what, even if they don’t feel like it. I call these people clock-timers, as they order their life based on the clock.

【C2】_____, there are some people who refuse to do so. They, though, do not live without order. But their order is not based on an【C3】__cue, like the clock;【C4】__, such people base their order on an internal cue: themselves. They will exercise after they woke up,【C5】__that might be; they will take a shower after they exercised; and then after the shower, they will go to work. I call these people event-timers, as they order their life based on events that 【C6】_____them.

One study in a yoga class examined the influence of【C7】_____on clocks. The yogis followed either an event-timer style or a clock-timer style while【C8】__their yoga poses. In the event-timer class, instructors were asked to tell the yogis when to enter and leave poses, with no【C9】__to the length of the pose and without any clocks【C10】__in the room. In the clock-timer class, instructors were asked to tell in advance how long to【C11】__each pose, and time was【C12】_____using a clock on the wall.

【C13】_____enough, the yogis that were in the clock-timer session missed more poses and gave up more poses than those yogis who were in the event-timer session. Moreover, the clock-timer yogis attributed their performance’s success/failure to the instructors【C14】__the event-timer yogis attributed their performance to themselves. This suggests that clock-timer yogis【C15】__control of their performance to an external entity (instructor) while the event-timer yogis took control【C16】__themselves. Finally, event-timer yogis reported higher levels of happiness during the session that【C17】_____a while after, compared to clock-timer yogis.

People who adopt an event-timer【C18】_____are happier and feel more in control. I don’t suggest losing clocks altogether. But when possible, on a day off,【C19】_____the clock.

Complete your activity at your own【C20】________, be in touch with your inner feelings, and enjoy the moment.

The plague of misinformation—false rumors about the ineffectiveness of face masks and the safety of 5G, to name a few examples—is usually blamed on social media. But false and damaging information isn’t just available online. It’s also abundant in broadcast media, and as politicians debate whether or how to regulate technology companies, they should also consider creating systems to address the dangers implicit in allowing and enabling the spread of misinformation, wherever it’s published.

Politicians have been concerned about the power of online platforms for years. Last week, leaders of Google, Facebook and Twitter were again asked to answer questions from members of Congress about how their platforms handle false or harmful material. The House and the Senate are considering legislation that would revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently exempts technology companies from being held responsible for the material they publish. Technology companies are also facing congressional scrutiny for potential antitrust violations.

But it is not at all clear that reducing the dominance of technology companies will go far enough. And oversight boards run by tech companies themselves are not sufficient, as those efforts can never be truly independent if they are assembled by, and are financially tied to, the very companies they are tasked with overseeing. Furthermore, addressing only the technology industry won’t cure the problem, because misinformation that is spread in one medium is reinforced and amplified by falsehoods spread on another.

Decades ago, long before there was a technology industry to regulate, the Federal Communications Commission instituted the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that required broadcasters to present diverse points of view on controversial topics. The law, which was designed to ensure that all sides of an issue were presented, was abolished in 1987 under President Ronald Reagan.

Congress should seriously consider revitalizing the Fairness Doctrine. This effort would be premised on the public’s right to be informed, rather than on the government controlling free speech. And it should be coupled with the appointment of public commissions or citizen juries that would provide independent oversight to confront misinformation in online and broadcast media. These independent bodies would include respected experts, could be appointed by the government and would be funded by industry.

There is clearly a need for more accountability from the private sector as well as the government in the matter of the spread of misinformation. A new Fairness Doctrine, coupled with independent oversight of broadcast and technology platforms, would help.

According to some economists, demography is economic destiny. Women are doing more than their fair share of nurturing a growing population. You’d think the economy would give them recognition for this service, yet motherhood means, for most, a hit to pay and progression. In Australia, women with one child earn 5％ less than those with no child. For women with two or more children, the wage penalty rises to 9％. Besides, about 15％ of mothers report experiencing discrimination in relation to performance assessments and career advancement while on or requesting parental leave.

On the contrary, men seem to get moderate pay bumps along with fist bumps when they become parents, with estimates ranging between no impact on their pay and a 2％ increase. So, let’s get this straight. Women are 2.5 times more likely to take parental leave than men, yet there’s a wage premium for being a dad and a wage penalty for being a mum. It doesn’t seem tostack up. Why aren’t new dads more likely to take time off?

Some of the reasons are pragmatic. Given that breastfeeding is difficult, though not impossible, for men and that mums need time to recover from childbirth, if there’s a choice between maternity leave (women’s paid parental leave) and paternity leave (men’s paid parental leave) for a newborn, maternity leave is prioritised.

Other reasons are societal. Mothers are often expected to take time off. Whether a woman is taking enough leave or not seems to be a popular water cooler conversation. Fathers—not so much. Patriarchal views still argue that men should be breadwinners, not caregivers and that men who spend more time with their families are less committed to their work.

What really gets me, though, are the financial reasons. Birth mothers of newborn children in Australia are entitled by law to up to 18 weeks of paid leave. Birth fathers? Just two weeks of paid leave. Here we have a law which explicitly discriminates against men on the basis of biological sex. In doing so, the law deepens old social gender roles and expectations.

Yes, providing more paid paternity leave would involve some cost to taxpayers. But it would also provide an economic boost. Paid paternity leave encourages mothers to go back to work earlier and incentivises people to become parents. At a time when population growth seems as difficult to achieve as economic growth, providing equal paid parental leave could be the thing which encourages our next baby boom—and our ticket out of a recession. Normally, an increased fertility rate is economic short-term pain (lower participation rates) for long-term gain (larger workforce).

Imagine the workplace of the future, where computers powered by artificial intelligence take care of the most tedious administrative tasks, making employees happier and more productive. Microsoft Corp. wants to be at the forefront of that future—and its deal for voice-recognition and AI specialist Nuance Communications Inc. shows it’s willing to spend a lot of money to do it.

Microsoft had agreed to buy Nuance Communications Inc. for about $56 a share, or almost $20 billion including debt. At first glance, it may seem strange. For much of the last decade, Nuance’s sales have stagnated as the early pioneer of speech-recognition products wasn’t able to innovate fast enough. But that has changed. Given the impressive technology and potential inside its latest AI solution for health care, a purchase of Nuance makes sense.

The game-changing product is the Nuance Dragon Ambient experience AX). While prior offerings forced doctors to use devices to transcribe notes and then spend hours at the end of the day to file paperwork, DAX takes the administrative burden off their plate. During each visit, the system records voice conversations between doctors and patients, then leverages AI to find the proper context for the discussions and automatically creates detailed clinical documentation for review. All the doctor has to do is sign off. At least for physicians, it seems as if the Al-powered panacea is now here.

A Microsoft-Nuance combination increases the opportunity for growth, with Microsoft’s strong influence allowing for a larger rollout.There are other synergies. DAX, which already uses Microsoft’s cloud-computing service Azure and benefits from its AI technologies under a strategic partnership signed in 2019, can be further integrated into the technology giant’s services to create an even more powerful offering. Most critically, Microsoft will learn all the intimate details on how to best develop advanced AI solutions for the workplace that it can apply to other industries.

On one front, however, Microsoft should behave carefully. No other technology company has been as active shopping for large companies. In late March, Bloomberg reported Microsoft was in talks to buy gaming chat community Discord Inc. for more than $10 billion. This, after the company completed its $7.5 billion acquisition of video-game publisher ZeniMax and reportedly considered Pinterest Inc. in recent months. Too many big deals may draw the attention of regulators, who may eventually wonder if the same antitrust scrutiny now given to giants such as Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc. should pertain to Microsoft as well.

In the meantime, if Microsoft can get a Nuance deal done without causing too much trouble for itself, it will add the essential expertise it needs to lead the next big disruptive wave of innovation. It’s a worthy pursuit.

A debate among scientists studying autism has erupted. At issue is language—for example, whether researchers should describe autism as a “disorder,” “disability,” or “difference,” and whether its associated features should be called “symptoms” or simply “traits.” In scientific papers and commentaries published in recent months, some have decried ableist language among their colleagues whereas others have defended traditional terminology—with both sides saying they have the best interests of autistic people in mind.

Since autism’s earliest descriptions in the academic literature as a condition affecting social interaction and communication, researchers and clinicians have framed it as a medical disorder, with a set of symptoms to be treated. Historically, autistic children have been institutionalized and subjected to treatments involving physical punishment, food restriction, and electric shocks. Even today, the most widely used autism therapy—applied behavior analysis—is seen by some as a harmful tool of normalization. Many autistic people and their families have embraced the view that their difficulties lie not with their autism, but with a society that isn’t built to support them.

But according to some autism researchers, the field still too often defaults to terms with negative connotations. For example, in addition to “symptom” and “disorder,” many scientists use the term “comorbid” rather than the more neutral “co-occurring” to describe conditions that tend to accompany autism. Similarly, some argue the oft-used phrase “people with autism,” as opposed to “autistic person,” can imply that autism is necessarily an unwanted harmful condition.

In a recent survey of 195 autism researchers, 60％ of responses included views about autistic people the study authors deemed dehumanizing or stigmatizing. Some responses described autistic people as “shut down from the outside world” or “completely inexpressive and apparently without emotions,” according to the November 2022 Frontiers in Psychology study. “What is worse than I thought was how obvious a lot of the content was, which shows that, for a large proportion of participants, they did not consider the things they were saying to be problematic at all,” says lead author Monique Botha, a psychologist at the University of Stirling.

Ableist language and the mindset that underlies it alsotrickles downto study design, says Botha, who is autistic. In studies testing autism interventions, for example, researchers rarely track adverse reactions such as physical harm or psychological distress, found a 2021 study led by Kristen Bottema-Beutel, who studies special education at Boston College. This oversight suggests many researchers see autistic people as less than human, Botha says. “It’s one of the most pervasive practices that genuinely keeps me up at night.”

[A] Avoid isolating yourself

[B] Focus on positive things

[C] Build a support system

[D] Let go of the past

[E] Seek professional help

[F] Challenge negative thoughts

[G] Stop overanalyzing things

5 Most Effective Ways to Cope with Depression

When you’re depressed, nothing can make you feel better. However, there are several mental tricks to combat depression that you may want to try because they do offer amazing results. Although you can treat depression using medication, cognitive behavioral therapy is also a therapy. It focuses on changing your behavior and is one of the most effective ways to cope with depression. So read on to learn mental tricks to combat depression and live a happy life.

【R1】________

Releasing the past might pose a challenge, but leading a contented and satisfying life is essential. It’s impossible to alter what has already occurred, and clutching onto the past can solely result in agony and distress. Instead, acknowledging that the past is history and directing our efforts toward the present is an excellent way to cope with depression. In doing so, we can use our mental and physical abilities to achieve our goals and set the foundation for a more promising future.

【R2】________

It is essential to acknowledge the negative impact of constantly ruminating on problems. This habit can be incredibly destructive and can have a significant effect on mental health. If you constantly dwell on issues, it may be time to break free from this cycle. Focusing on the problem will only maintain and worsen depression, preventing you from taking the necessary steps to combat it. Engaging in activities that bring you joy and fulfillment can be a helpful way to combat rumination. This can involve trying out new hobbies or revisiting old ones that you have enjoyed in the past. It can also include spending time with loved ones and building meaningful relationships.

【R3】________

Concentrating on the affirmative aspects is crucial to lead a more content and gratifying life to cope with depression. An effective approach to achieving this is incorporating small activities that bring us joy. Whether taking a stroll in the park, indulging in a good book, or spending time with cherished ones, it’s imperative to prioritize activities that bring us happiness. It’s effortless to get swayed by life’s pessimism, but by actively seeking affirmative experiences, we can alter our mindset and feel more content.

【R4】________

Depression can often cause individuals to withdraw from social interactions. However, this can worsen your depression over time. Sharing feelings with loved ones can provide valuable support and comfort during difficult times. By opening up to them, you’ll also have the chance to gauge trust and honesty in your relationships. Talking to someone about your problems can be daunting but can also be cathartic and healing. You may gain new insights and perspectives by sharing your thoughts and feelings with others. In addition, simply having someone to listen to and offer kind words of encouragement can be incredibly uplifting and motivating.

【R5】________

When you understand that you cannot manage depression symptoms alone, asking others for help is one of the most effective ways to cope with this mental health condition. Professional therapists and mental health counselors have the training and experience to help individuals develop coping strategies and work through the underlying issues contributing to their depression. They can also provide a safe and confidential space for individuals to express their thoughts and feelings without judgment.