In 2012, fewer than 7% of Americans had read poetry, which was down from 17% in 1992. In 2015, poetry was one of the least popular art activities for American grown-ups, with under 10% picking up a book and reading for pleasure. Just when it seemed to be on its deathbed, Instapoetry — easy-to-understand poems that are short enough to fit in your Instagram description — came to save the day.

Instapoetry appeared thanks to social media and Instapoems are usually no longer than a few lines and very direct. The influence Instapoetry has made in the poetry world is great. In 2017, poetry sales were twice what they were in 2016. In 2018, 28 million Americans were reading poems, which was the highest percentage (百分比) of poetry readership in nearly twenty years.

Many people have raved about the new type of poetry. The fact that it’s direct while also being touching is what interests many readers. Before the appearance of Instapoetry, many people thought of poetry as being long and difficult to understand. With Instapoetry, it is easy to understand what the author is trying to say. Readers don’t feel stupid or think the poetry needs to be studied carefully. It’s just simple beauty.

It’s not all sunshine and rainbows, though. Instapoetry has been criticized (批评) for having no meaning and for seeming like passing thoughts thrown on paper, packed up (包装) all pretty and given to the general public. Instapoetry has also been seen as a disgrace (耻辱) to writers who have worked tirelessly to improve their skills and achieve recognition.

In a world filled with a huge amount of entertainment (娱乐活动), people often choose things that are more showy, eye-catching and don’t take up too much time. Instapoetry fits the bill perfectly. While poets who choose to stick to traditional poetry should certainly keep writing, Instapoetry could be just what the poetry world needs to get it back on its feet.

Spring is coming, and it is time for those about to graduate to look for jobs. Competition is tough, so job seekers must carefully consider their personal choices. Whatever we are wearing, our family and friends may accept us, but the workplace may not.

A high school newspaper editor said it is unfair for companies to discourage visible tattoos (纹身). nose rings. or certain dress styles. It is true you can’t judge a book by its cover, yet people do “cover” themselves in order to convey (传递) certain messages. What we wear, including tattoos and nose rings. is an expression of who we are. Just as people convey messages about themselves with their appearances, so do companies Dress standards exist in the business world for a number of reasons, but the main concern is often about what customers accept.

Others may say how to dress is a matter of personal freedom, but for businesses it is more about whether to make or lose money. Most employers do care about the personal appearances of their employees (雇员) because those people represent the companies to their customers.

As a hiring manager I am paid to choose the people who would make the best impression on our customers. There are plenty of well-qualified candidates, so it is not wrong to refuse someone who might disappoint my customers. Even though I am open-minded. I can’t expect all our customers are.

There is nobody to blame but yourself if your set of choices does not match that of your preferred employer. No company should have to change to satisfy a candidate simply because he or she is unwilling to respect its standards, as long as its standards are legal.

Studies with financial ties to the sugar-sweetened beverage (drinks) industry are much less likely than independent studies to find a link between sipping sugary drinks and developing obesity or diabetes, according to an Annals of Internal Medicine Report published Monday.

Researchers reviewed 60 studies published between January 2001 and July 2016 that investigated consuming drinks with added sugar and these diseases. They also identified whether the reports were independently funded, or if they were backed by—or the authors had financial conflicts with—the sugar-sweetened beverage industry.

Every one of the 26 studies that found no connection between sugary drinks and diabetes or obesity were industry-funded. But of the 34 studies that did find a connection between sugar and illness, only one had ties to sugar-sweetened beverages.

“This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public’s health,” concluded the report.

The latest report comes a month after a JAMA Internal Medicine investigation found that the Sugar Research Foundation paid three Harvard scientists about $50,000 in the 1960s to publish research that blamed fat and cholesterol(胆固醇) for causing heart disease, and downplayed the role of sweeteners.

Dr. Mark Hyman, director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Functional Medicine has long been skeptical about the sweet stuff.

“The sugar industry and soda companies are following the same playbook as the tobacco industry did trying to defend tobacco,” he told the News. “They destroy the science by financing scientists who are actually pushing their agenda and designing flawed trials that show there’s no harm. They sway public opinion, and they lobby politicians.”

He advised consumers confused about what research to believe to “follow the money.” “If a bunch of Harvard scientists say one thing, and Coca-Cola says another thing, you should wonder about who the messenger is, and where the money to fund the study is coming from,” he said.