“One of the most humbling parts of being alive is realizing you’ve long been doing a simple thing wrong—or, at least, not in the way experts say you should be doing it,” Isabel Fattal writes in The Wonder Reader. (From 2024) https://theatln.tc/P081WP6W
“Did you know that the best time to apply deodorant is right before bed? Or that you should get rid of your black plastic spatulas? Or that you probably shower too much? Being hit with these truths can feel unmooring … But there’s power in the knowledge too.” This week’s newsletter explores our ever-evolving understanding of how humans live, and what’s best for us.
Read more, and sign up for The Wonder Reader, a guide to new and classic Atlantic stories, published every Saturday: https://theatln.tc/P081WP6W
Factory foremen once made more than computer programmers in America
Factory foremen were high earners in 1980
We thought a lot this year about the economy through the lens of the election: Why were voters so unhappy? Yes, inflation had spiked for a period, but many economic measures seemed positive, like a low unemployment rate.
We ultimately created our own metric — one that measures the status people hold in the economy relative to everyone else, and how that status has changed. One surprising finding: In 1980, front-line production supervisors (essentially factory foremen) made more on average than computer programmers. That’s obviously not true anymore. One of those jobs has evolved in complexity, pay and prestige; the other has been squeezed by automation and globalization. No wonder factory workers might feel unmoored.
We learned this while analyzing census microdata. But we were so startled by the comparison that we went back to the source to check it: The document above is a 1980 census publication showing the average income of production supervisors in the heyday of American manufacturing. — Emily Badger, Robert Gebeloff and Aatish Bhatia
I covered The Post at the end of the 1990s, and while the Grahams
could be stodgy and parochial, the company was always known as a
stand-up institution built on loyalty. Mr. Brauchli may not have been
the perfect person to lead the newsroom in entropic times, but the way
the switch was made raised questions about Ms. Weymouth’s maturity and
steadfastness as an operational leader.
我在20世紀90年代末期曾報道過《華盛頓郵報》。儘管格雷厄姆家族僵化保守、目光狹隘，但該公司一直以來都被認為是一家建立在忠誠之上的堂堂正正
的機構。鮑偉傑可能不是在混亂時期指導新聞編輯的最佳人選，但韋茅斯的換人方式不得不讓人質疑韋茅斯作為經營領導人的成熟度和堅定度。
Dreyfus and Kelly suffer from the usual Cambridge/Berkeley parochialism. They assume that nobody believes in eternal truth anymore. They write as if all of America’s moral quandaries are best expressed by the novelist David Foster Wallace. But they are on to something important when they describe the way — far more than in past ages — sports has risen up to fill a spiritual void.
Spiritually unmoored, many people nonetheless experience intense elevation during the magical moments that sport often affords. Dreyfus and Kelly mention the mood that swept through the crowd at Yankee Stadium when Lou Gehrig delivered his “Luckiest Man Alive” speech, or the mood that swept through Wimbledon as Roger Federer completed one of his greatest matches.
1. To remain valid, sound, or durable: His claim will not stand up in court. Our old car has stood up well over time.
2. Informal To fail to keep a date with.
stodgy
音節
stodg • y
発音
stɑ'dʒi | stɔ'dʒi
[形]（-i・er, -i・est）
1 〈食べ物が〉こってりした, 腹にもたれる.
2 〈文体などが〉重苦しい；〈小説・人などが〉退屈な, うんざりする.
3 〈人が〉ずんぐりした, がっしりした.
4 〈人・考えなどが〉古臭い, 古風な；いやに格式ばった.
stodg・i・ly
[副]
stodg・i・ness
《德訓篇》Ecclesiasticus
"生活在19世紀末20世紀初，吉卜林親身體驗了歐洲文明向全世界的兇猛擴張，經歷了第一次世界大戰。在此期間，大兒約翰（John）在1915年的盧斯之戰中犧牲，為此，吉卜林自責地寫下了「如果有人問我們為什麼死，告訴他們，因為我們的父輩說了謊。」（If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied）， 這句話的來由，可能是因為吉卜林送兒子參軍時，為批准(兒子的視力很差)，做了很多努力。為了彌補心中的創傷，吉卜林加入了費邊帝國戰爭治喪委員會（現為共和國戰爭治喪委員會），這個組織負責英國戰爭中犧牲人員的墓地建設。吉卜林挑選了聖經中的短句「Their Name Liveth For Evermore」，刻在了幾個較大的戰爭墓地紀念碑上，同時他也記錄了兒子的愛爾蘭衛隊的歷史。"
沒有留言:
張貼留言