Smoking, which may be a pleasure for some people, is a series of discomfort for those who live around the smokers. Medical scientists have expressed their concern about the negative effect of smoking. It not only has a bad effect on the health, but also does harm to those who do not smoke at all. As a matter of fact, non-smokers who breathe in the air which has been polluted by tobacco smoke would suffer much more seriously than the smokers themselves.

Therefore, a great number of students are trying to persuade the university to forbid smoking in classrooms as well as around the campus. Actually, they have the reason to believe that they are completely right in their aim. However, I think it much more important for people to achieve this by calling on the smokers to use good judgment and to show concern for people living around them. Smoking not only should be strictly forbidden in the classroom and on the campus, but also it ought to be banned in theaters, cinemas, restaurants and in other public places.

Although many people have died for the related diseases caused by smoking and now lots of work has been done to call on people to give up smoking, yet there still quite a few people, especially the young generation, insist on smoking and neglect what health doctors has warned them every day.

Well, if they continue doing what they like without concerning others’ situation, they will surely be responsible for their deeds.

Why is it difficult to end an embarrassing conversation (尬聊) when both parties are ready to stop? We are now having face-to-face chats with friends instead of talking online. But have you ever been in a conversation that you wish you could run away from? Scientists have proved that you might not be alone.

Recently, a research team surveyed 806 participants about a recent conversation they had with someone close to them. The participants were asked about the actual length and their expected length of the conversation, and how long they thought the other person wanted to talk for, whether they were chatting with friends or family.

About one-third of the conversation length was unwanted, according to the team’s paper published in the journal PNAS. Also, more participants believed that they wanted to end the conversation first. On average, they continued talking for 3. 87 minutes before they sensed that the other speaker wished the same thing. Situations are similar when it comes to strangers. Only about 1.6 percent of the conversations ended when both parties wanted them to.

The paper pointed out that when they talk to strangers, what makes people “mask their desires” may be their politeness. When talking to close friends and family, it may be their kindness as ending the conversation too soon may hurt the other’s feelings.

So what is the best way to end a conversation? Saying you only have a certain amount of time to talk at the start of the chat is a good place to start. “Remember conversations don’t end because people don’t know when the other person wants to go,” Adam Mastroianni who led the study told the Inverse website. You should make your partner feel good about the end of the chat by “clearly communicating that you had a nice time and would like to continue talking next time”. Mastroianni also suggested that the difficulty in ending conversations may be a “coordination (协调) problem”. It’s hard to tell your grandma you want to get off the phone just because you want the conversation to be over, for example. However, in some ways this dilemma may not be a bad thing. People need social connections, and conversation is a good way to make these connections happen.

The US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) recently asked scientists, lawyers, social scientists and other experts to consider some of these ethical dimensions. To give two examples: on privacy, as we let more listening devices into our homes, how do we prevent the data they collect falling into the wrong hands through hacking (黑客) or simply being sold between companies without us receiving any money? Another example: mixed reality, including virtual reality, will become pervasive in the next few years. As we move from headsets to what the IEEE committee describes as “more subtle and integrated sensory enhancements” we will use technology to live in an illusory world in many aspects of our lives. How do we balance the rights of the individual, control over our virtual identity, and the need to live and interact on a face-to-face basis while being empowered to live rich lives in mixed reality?

There is, of course, always a tension between innovation and regulation. But it can often seem that giant steps are taken in technology with minimal public discussion. Take the self-driving car: although it may be safer than human drivers and is likely to save more than a million lives a year worldwide, it will also take jobs from drivers, traffic police, sign-makers, car-repair companies, carmakers and more. Is this a bargain we want to make? In taking that decision, have we given thought to a car that knows everywhere we go, decides routes, perhaps, based on paid advertisements from shops along the way—and listens and sees everything we do on board? What will happen to that data and can it be kept safe?

Additionally, while some worry about the uncommon “trolley problem” of whom the car should choose to hit in a freak accident—an old lady or a mother and baby—perhaps the more frequent issue will be how we find out what the algorithm (算法) was thinking at the time of an accident, because AIs (Artificial Intelligence) are self-learning and devise their own strategies.

Similar concerns are emerging over the internet of things. Robot vacuum-cleaners already plot cleaning cycles using computer-aided vision that, for some models, is relayed to their manufacturers. As more things at home become connected, they will be hackable and the data they collect sellable.

It’s time for some messy, democratic discussions about the future of AI.