We live in a town with three beaches. There are two parks less than 10 minutes' walk from home where neighbourhood children gather to play. However, what my children want to do after school is pick up a screen — any screen — and stare at it for hours. They are not alone. Today's children spend an average of four and a half hours a day looking at screens, split between watching television and using the Internet.

In the past few years, an increasing number of people and organisations have begun coming up with plans to counter this trend. A couple of years ago, film-maker David Bond realised that his children, then aged five and three, were attached to screens to the point where he was able to say "chocolate" into his three-year-old son's ear without getting a response. He realised that something needed to change, and, being a London media type, appointed himself "marketing director for Nature". He documented his journey as he set about treating nature as a brand to be marketed to young people. The result was Project Wild Thing, a film which charts the birth of the Wild Network a group of organisations with the common goal of getting children out into nature.

"Just five more minutes outdoors can make a difference," David Bond says. "There is a lot of really interesting evidence which seems to be suggesting that if children are inspired up to the age of seven, then being outdoors will be a habit for life." His own children have got into the habit of playing outside now: "We just send them out into the garden and tell them not to come back in for a while."

Summer is upon us. There is an amazing world out there, and it needs our children as much as they need it. Let us get them out and let them play.

In 1916, two girls of wealthy families, best friends from Auburn, N. Y.—Dorothy Woodruff and Rosamond Underwood—traveled to a settlement in the Rocky Mountains to teach in a one-room schoolhouse. The girls had gone to Smith College. They wore expensive clothes. So for them to move to Elkhead, Colo. to instruct the children whose shoes were held together with string was a surprise. Their stay in Elkhead is the subject of Nothing Daunted: The Unexpected Education of Two Society Girls in the West by Dorothy Wickenden, who is a magazine editor and Dorothy Woodruff's granddaughter.

Why did they go then? Well, they wanted to do something useful. Soon, however, they realized what they had undertaken.

They moved in with a local family, the Harrisons, and, like them, had little privacy, rare baths, and a blanket of snow on their quilt when they woke up in the morning. Some mornings, Rosamond and Dorothy would arrive at the schoolhouse to find the children weeping from the cold. In spring, the snow was replaced by mud over ice.

In Wickenden's book, she expanded on the history of the West and also on feminism, which of course influenced the girls' decision to go to Elkhead. A hair-raising section concerns the building of the railroads, which entailed（牵涉）drilling through the Rockies, often in blinding snowstorms. The book ends with Rosamond and Dorothy's return to Auburn.

Wickenden is a very good storyteller. The sweep of the land and the stoicism（坚忍）of the people move her to some beautiful writing. Here is a picture of Dorothy Woodruff, on her horse, looking down from a hill top: "When the sun slipped behind the mountains, it shed a rosy glow all around them. Then a full moon rose. The snow was marked only by small animals: foxes, coyotes, mice, and varying hares, which turned white in the winter."

Quantum (量子) computers have been on my mind a lot lately. A friend has been sending me articles on how quantum computers might help solve some of the biggest challenges we face as humans. I've also had exchanges with two quantum-computing experts. One is computer scientist Chris Johnson who I see as someone who helps keep the field honest. The other is physicist Philip Taylor.

For decades, quantum computing has been little more than a laboratory curiosity. Now, big tech companies have invested in quantum computing, as have many smaller ones. According to Business Weekly, quantum machines could help us "cure cancer, and even take steps to turn climate change in the opposite direction." This is the sort of hype (炒作) that annoys Johnson. He worries that researchers are making promises they can't keep. "What's new," Johnson wrote, "is that millions of dollars are now potentially available to quantum computing researchers.

As quantum computing attracts more attention and funding, researchers may mislead investors, journalists, the public and, worst of all, themselves about their work's potential. If researchers can't keep their promises, excitement might give way to doubt, disappointment and anger, Johnson warns. Lots of other technologies have gone through stages of excitement. But something about quantum computing makes it especially prone to hype, Johnson suggests, perhaps because ""quantum' stands for something cool you shouldn't be able to understand." And that brings me back to Taylor, who suggested that I read his book Q for Quantum.

After I read the book, Taylor patiently answered my questions about it. He also answered my questions about PyQuantum, the firm he co-founded in 2016. Taylor shares Johnson's concerns about hype, but he says those concerns do not apply to PyQuantum.

The company, he says, is closer than any other firm "by a very large margin (幅度)" to building a "useful quantum computer, one that "solves an impactful problem that we would not have been able to solve otherwise." He adds, "People will naturally discount my opinions, but I have spent a lot of time quantitatively comparing what we are doing with others"

Could PyQuantum really be leading all the competition "by a wide margin", as Taylor claims? I don't know. I'm certainly not going to advise my friend or anyone else to invest in quantum computers. But I trust Taylor, just as I trust Johnson.