A conference was held with former technology industry leaders calling for immediate measures to protect children from smartphone addiction.

Among those major changes is Tristan Harris—a former high-level employee at Google. He just organized a group that will seek to gather and publish evidence of how digital devices and social media can harm children and young people. Harris says he believes companies like Google, Facebook and Apple have a “moral responsibility” not to create technology products that can “hijack how the mind works”.

The conference where Harris spoke was supported by Common Sense Media, a child and family activist group. The organization says research suggests that half of all teenagers feel addicted to their mobile devices, while about 60 percent of parents believe their kids are addicted.

The group also mentions a recent study of eighth-graders that found heavy users of technology were 56 percent more likely to say they are unhappy, while 27 percent more likely to be depressed. Even Facebook spoke of research last year suggesting that social media use can harm mental health when used in certain ways.

James Steyer is the founder of Common Sense. He says more than half of schools in the US are already members of the organization. The group provides teachers and parents with learning materials intended to help students develop critical thinking skills and balance their digital lives.

Some US schools, however, have tried to limit or remove technology to improve learning. One of them is in Silicon Valley, the center of the American tech industry.

The Waldorf School of the Peninsula does not use any computers or digital technology in its education programs up to the seventh grade. The school’s website says while Waldorf teachers recognize the role technology can play in the classroom, it must wait until the student reaches the right developmental age. Normally when students reach high school, they are allowed to use computers and digital tools in the classroom.

Turning around corners, weaving through traffic, every second matters. It is neither a street race nor a 007 chase, but the risky journey of a sushi (寿司) roll.

The streets of China are filled with delivery drivers racing noodles, sandwiches and soups across cities. While the everyday consumer may find these services convenient, most do not realize the true cost of their delivery. How much is that late-night snack really worth?

Strict time limits are the main concern for delivery drivers. The Chinese delivery app Meituan decreased the maximum time allowance from 50 minutes to 30 or even 20. Time literally means money: Surpassing the limit can result in fines, which are paid to the firm rather than to the consumers. Yet, beyond fines, there is often a greater cost. According to Pandaily News, one delivery worker is injured or killed in accidents every 2.5 days in Shanghai and, sadly, companies seldom provide insurance claims when their time limits lead to these consequences. Drivers are pushed to break traffic rules and risk their lives so your sushi is not a minute late.

Furthermore, low wages and extensive working hours exacerbate these issues. Some companies in China take advantage of the economic inequalities between China’s large cities and less developed interior to offer extremely low pay to migrant delivery drivers while demanding long hours. Yet these long hours and low pay are common throughout the global delivery industry. In the United States, advertised earnings of $22 per hour are largely exaggerated while workers complain that food delivery apps rarely give them all their tips.

What is the solution? First, consumers should recognize what is behind their impossibly cheap and fast delivery: exploitation. We should expect more from the delivery app companies and less from their drivers. That is, we should pay more and wait longer while only ordering from companies who offer their drivers fair wages, insurance and a safe working environment. In the end, your sushi is just not worth it.

What kind of dinosaur are you? If you answered Tyrannosaurus rex, then the bad news is that you probably won’t get the job you’re applying for.

Welcome to the strange world of “extreme interviewing”, the latest trend in which interviewers throw bizarre questions at candidates to see how they react.

It may seem like a game, but extreme interviewing is deadly serious. The idea is to see how quickly job seekers think on their feet and, at a time when 25 percent of recent graduates are unemployed, it offers employers a new way of separating the brilliant candidates from the merely very good.

This new approach to selecting candidates comes from Silicon Valley in California. One of the early pioneers of extreme interviewing was Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple, who could be famously cruel with job seekers. Faced once with a candidate he considered boring, Jobs suddenly pretended to be a chicken, flapping his arms and making clucking noises around the unfortunate applicant, waiting to see what he would do. In fact, the secret to extreme interviewing is neither in the question nor the answer. It is in the candidate’s reaction.

David Moyle, a headhunter with the recruitment agency Eximius Group, who admits to using the dinosaur question selecting candidates, said: “Essentially, that kind of interviewing is used by us to give someone an opportunity to show they are smart.”

“Most candidates actually get something out of it, it’s not about trying to crush them. We are trying to give them an opportunity to show their personality, rather than just showing how they perform in an interview.”

Of course, getting the job is just the start. In the modern business world, survival will depend on what kind of dinosaur you really are.