Everybody likes a compliment.【C1】_____, how many of us have had a kind, complimentary thought about another individual in our daily lives, but never took the time to express it directly to that person? In all【C2】_____, quite a few of us.

Some researchers examined why we【C3】_____away from complimenting people, 【C4】__people we don’t know. They asked participants to【C5】__the fourth person they saw in a particular area, and give that person a specific compliment. And they also measured what emotional【C6】__participants thought their comment would have on someone, and the emotional impact it actually had. In another version of the study, they asked additional participants, who would【C7】_____have to compliment anyone nor be on the receiving end of a compliment in the study, to imagine how someone would feel after getting a compliment from another person.

The results revealed that we avoid complimenting people【C8】_____we misjudge how they’ll react, making light of how much a compliment can【C9】__someone and magnifying how【C10】_____we expect someone to feel in response to it.

But why do we underrate the【C11】_____power of our words? As the researchers found, we’re【C12】__to feel nervous and doubtful about our【C13】__to skillfully compliment someone, which influences our accurate estimation of how someone will feel in response. Notably, the additional participants who only had to【C14】__how someone would react to a compliment were actually better【C15】__than the actual people doing the complimenting. These additional participants weren’t nervous, which left them more【C16】__of gauging how people would feel after receiving a compliment. On top of this, there was evidence that after giving someone a compliment, it can【C17】_____our own mood.

In general, we all have a powerful tool of human good will at our【C18】_____, words of genuine and thoughtful appreciation that take just a few moments to give.【C19】__the next time you【C20】_____how kind someone was in a brief interaction or even if you just like their shoes, try to let them know. It’ll produce a more beneficial effect than you may think, for them and for you.

The final draft of the UK government’s long-awaited legislation designed to protect people from “harmful” content on the internet is today being presented to Parliament.

The Online Safety Bill is wide-ranging. Technology companies such as Twitter, Google, Facebook and TikTok get a host of new responsibilities. They have to check all adverts appearing on their platforms to make sure they aren’t frauds, while those that allow adult content will have to verify the age of users to ensure they aren’t children.

Online platforms will also have to proactively remove anything that is deemed “harmful content”—details of what this includes remain unclear, but the announcement today mentioned the examples “self-harm, harassment and eating disorders”.

The bill also gives stronger powers to regulators and watchdogs to investigate breaches: a new criminal offence will be introduced to prevent employees of firms covered by the legislation fromtampering withdata before handing it over, and another for stopping or obstructing raids or investigations. The regulator Office of Communication (Ofcom) will have the power to fine companies up to 10 per cent of their annual global turnover.

Alan Woodward at the University of Surrey in the UK says the legislation is being proposed with good intentions, but the devil is in the detail. “The first issue comes about when trying to define ’harm’,” he says. “Differentiating between harmful and free speech is filled with difficulty. Some subjective test doesn’t really give the sort of certainty technology companies will need if they face being held liable for enabling such content.”

He also points out that tech-sawy children will be able to use VPNs, the Tor browser and other tricks to easily get around the measures relating to age verification and user identity.

There are also concerns that the bill will cause technology companies to take a cautious approach to what they allow on their sites that ends up suppressing free speech, open discussion and potentially useful content with controversial themes.

Anything that increases the burden of responsibility and introduces new risks for negligence won’t be popular with tech firms, and companies that operate globally are unlikely to be pleased at the prospect of having to create new tools and procedures for the UK market alone.

Google and Facebook didn’t respond to a request for comment, while Twitter’s Katy Minshall says “a one-size-fits-all approach fails to consider the diversity of our online environment”. But she added that Twitter would “look forward to reviewing” the bill.

On the eve of this week’s rail strikes, it was reported that industry bosses are planning to gradually terminate paper train tickets and shut almost 1,000 station ticket offices in England. The government says nothing has been decided. But the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, has made no secret of his desire to see savings delivered in this way; some stations,

Mr Shapps likes to point out, sell only a handful of tickets each week and the vast majority of transactions have moved online.

Irrespective of the outcome of the current standoff with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the direction of travel is clear. In the name of modernisation and cost-cutting, station ticket offices are likely to follow many high street bank branches and rural post offices into the vaults of sepia-tinted memory. For those of us who have grown used to the advantages of organising travel via a smartphone, there will be little to mourn. But for people without online access or skills—who tend to be older, poorer and more vulnerable—another small social barrier will have been erected.

From General Practitioner appointments to payment apps for parking, more and more key services are now delivered digitally. Local councils, cash-strapped and in search of efficiency savings, are moving online in the way they do business. British Telecom plans tophase outtraditional landlines by 2025. As this revolution takes place, unjustified assumptions are being made about the ability of some users to cope. In the case of health and social care, it will often be those most in need of assistance who are least able to navigate a digital route to accessing it. A recent Ofcom report estimated that around 6％ of households—1.5m homes—have no internet access. Millions more of us remain irregular and unconfident users of the internet. As digital technology becomes the gatekeeper to swathes of everyday life—a process accelerated by the pandemic—a significant minority risks exclusion and isolation.

The debate over ticket offices offers an opportunity to reflect more broadly on the increasing role of technology in our social landscape. Clearly, much more needs to be invested in helping marginalised groups gain easy online access. But a diversity of provision also needs to be protected. Some people will never become comfortable using smartphones or tablets to get vital tasks done. Alternative and viable offline options must be maintained for important services. Contactable telephone numbers and staffed public access points should always be available. This will cost more. But that is the price of being fair to those who find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Governments are at war with big business. In June Joe Biden, America’s president, spoke for many politicians the world over when he blamed it for greed-fuelled price rises, slow wage growth, forgone innovation and fragile supply chains. His trustbusters at the Federal Trade Commission (ftc) have been going after large deals merely because they are large—or at least that is how it feels. Courtroom defeats do not weaken the agency’s zeal. The latest came on July 11th, when a judge rejected its request to prevent Microsoft’s $69bn acquisition of Activision Blizzard, a developer of video games. The ftc is expected to appeal against the ruling.

Trustbusters invoke three reasons for their renewed vigour: greater market concentration, reduced churn among the world’s biggest firms and rising corporate profits. On the surface all three point to rising corporate power. Look closely, though, and the trends may be the result of benign factors such as technological progress and globalization. In some local markets, greater concentration may, paradoxically, have led to more competition, not less. Some big firms, it is true, have been collecting rents, including in big sectors such as health care. But trustbusters’ strategy—to reflexively question any deal involving a big firm—is wrongheaded.

Still, high concentration, low churn and rich profits need not necessarily make consumers worse off. That concentration has been rising for 100 years, during which life has improved for virtually everyone, is the first clue that it may be the result of benign forces. Increases in industry concentration in America over the past century are correlated with greater technological intensity, higher fixed costs and higher output growth, according to researchers. None of these seems particularly evil.

Most encouraging, far from being suppressed, dynamism may be on the rise. John Haltiwanger of the University of Maryland notes that business formation has surged since the pandemic. Whether these startups will dislodge existing enterprises is still unclear. But venture-capital investment suggests investors see scope for healthy returns. One hypothesis is that the remote-friendliness of the post-covid economy reduces startup costs. Young firms no longer need to rent a big office. They can hire from a less local talent pool. Consumers’ growing comfort with such options could inspire more new businesses to set up shop.

Such overzealous trustbusting carries its own risks. It may distract attention from more immediate threats to economic dynamism. Acquisitions can be useful for preserving the value of startups when subdued markets make it hard for founders to raise capital. And some big deals may benefit consumers, as when a biotech startup joins forces with established drugmakers to test and distribute a new therapy. Competition authorities were probably asleep for too long. Now they may be getting up too quickly.

Close to 6,000 individuals, among them many historians, have signed an online petition protesting the recent decision by administrators at Aston University in Birmingham, U.K., to dissolve their department of history, languages and translation and to render the faculty members “redundant”—that is, to terminate their contracts within the next few years.

From a perspective beyond the ethics of employment in higher education, what is happening at Aston amplifies alarms that have begun to ring elsewhere as well, not just in the U.K. but also here in the United States. It appears, based on The Guardian’s reporting, that the decision at Aston could be part of a broader attack on humanities teaching in the so-called modern universities in the U.K. that cater in particular to first-generation college students. Similarly, in America, especially at nonelite universities, governing boards and administrators have mistakenly assumed that history and other humanities subjects do not prepare students for jobs. State legislatures have even begun to consider proposals to tie financial aid to a student’s declaration of majors that “lead directly to employment.”

This is not a matter of the science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines (STEM) versus the humanities. One would be hard-pressed to see where physics leads any more “directly” to immediate employment than history. Instead, it is an attack on two of the very premises of undergraduate education in a democratic society: access to opportunity and preparation for citizenship. Many employers are seeking entry-level applicants who know how to learn, rather than, or in addition to, specific occupational knowledge. Moreover, learning how to learn—indeed, the hunger for lifelong learning—might well be more appropriate to an economy that shifts as rapidly as we see today, not to mention the foreseeable future. When Aston University eliminates programs in history and other humanities disciplines, it is denying its students the broad educational foundation necessary to open opportunities available to their peers at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Aston’s defense seems to be that it wants to provide a “practical” education. History, like other humanities disciplines, might not prepare students for particular jobs. But it prepares them for a life of careers. Students who learn to think historically will be lifelong learners. In the 21st-century economy, that is rather practical indeed.

Everything has a history. As one Aston student recently explained, “I feel like the skills I am learning in this degree, I could take anywhere. It’s about putting together information and backing up an argument with evidence. The idea that history isn’t an employable degree is just bizarre.”

[A] Utilize cue cards

[B] Stay organized in an emergency

[C] Avoid distractions

[D] Have a procrastination “diet”

[E] Take a break and get outside

[F] Prioritize based on urgency and importance

[G] Don’t hesitate to act

How to Actually Stop Procrastinating and Be Productive

We’ve all been bitten by the procrastination bug—delaying important tasks week after week. When it comes to procrastination, what matters is how you respond. Here are some strategies to combat your procrastination syndrome and promote your productivity.

【R1】________

Most people sit back and wait for things to happen to them. Don’t be that person. Working overtime doesn’t impress anyone; get the job done accurately and quickly.

Nike says it best: “Just do it.” If you hesitate, you lose. So whatever you have to do, stop thinking and talking about it and just tackle it now in an organized manner. And if you feel stuck and struggle with procrastination, you probably need to find a job that you enjoy and are good at.

【R2】________

Whether it’s Netflix, Facebook, or your dog, life serves up distractions that take away your attention from important tasks. You justify it because it’s just five minutes here, five minutes there; but before you know it, you’ve wasted an hour. To beat procrastination, you cannot compromise or get distracted by activities with little or no value.

You can divide each hour into 15-minute blocks, and then work fast and furiously to see how much you can accomplish in each block. When you approach time this way, you have little room for distraction as you move from one thing to the next.

【R3】________

People fill their time with trivial tasks because they provide immediate rewards. So the secret to beating procrastination is devising a system to reward you whenever you act on the important things. Break down projects into small, manageable tasks. For example, if you’re writing a book, break it into 500-word sections. Keep a stack of cue cards with notes on each section. Every time you complete 500 words, flip that card face down on the other side. This reward gives you a shot of the feel-good hormone dopamine, pulling you through the process.

【R4】________

It’s human nature to dodge things that don’t feel good, which is why the tasks we want to avoid linger week after week. When something starts to create anxiety or pressure, we resist it and run away.

The best way to break a habit is to develop new ones, so put yourself on a procrastination diet. Whenever you feel resistance, give yourself one task and then do it. Do two the next time, then three. The first few days of a diet can be hard, but it gets easier if you stick with it. What’s important is getting started. Before you know it, you’re breaking old habits and doing things that make you uncomfortable.

【R3】________

You can group your tasks based on urgency and importance. Urgent and important tasks get done. Tasks that are important but not urgent get planned. Urgent, unimportant tasks get delegated. If it’s not urgent or important, you can ignore it. Ideally, you can spend at least 80％ of your time on important items.