We all know that unpleasant feeling when we're talking about something interesting and halfway through our sentence we're interrupted. But was that really an interruption? The answer depends on whom you ask, according to new research led by Katherine Hilton from Stanford University.

Using a set of controlled audio clips (录音片段), Hilton surveyed 5,000 American English speakers to better understand what affects people's perceptions of interruptions. She had participants listen to audio clips and then answer questions about whether the speakers seemed to be friendly and engaged, listening to one another, or trying to interrupt.

Hilton found that American English speakers have different conversational styles. She identified two distinct groups: high and low intensity speakers. High intensity speakers are generally uncomfortable with moments of silence in conversation and consider talking at the same time a sign of engagement. Low intensity speakers find it rude to talk at the same time and prefer people speak one after another in conversation.

The differences in conversational styles became evident when participants listened to audio clips in which two people spoke at the same time but were agreeing with each other and stayed on topic, Hilton said. The high intensity group reported that conversations where people spoke at the same time when expressing agreement were not interruptive but engaged and friendlier than the conversations with moments of silence in between speaking turns. In contrast, the low intensity group perceived any amount of simultaneous (同时) chat as a rude interruption, regardless of what the speakers were saying.

"People care about being interrupted, and those small interruptions can have a massive effect on the overall communication," Hilton said. "Breaking apart what an interruption means is essential if we want to understand how humans interact with each other."

A year of lockdown has brought about some questionable fashion trends. In US suburbs, bathrobes and slippers are now socially-acceptable clothing for a trip to the grocery store.

Ugly shoes are also having a moment. Crocs, the maker of plastic clogs木屐 now with a market worth of $5.3 billion, had a record 2020. The distinctive shoes, with their punch (打孔机) hole design, have long been popular with hospital staff. During the COVID-19 outbreak, they have become a sought-after item for those looking for something easy to wear and clean. The company sold more than 69 million pairs of shoes in 2020 and pulled in nearly $1.4 billion, a 13% jump from 2019. The share price, up 650 per cent from its pandemic low, has set repeated new highs this year.

Birkenstock is another brand riding high on the shift to a more casual lifestyle. The German group recently sold itself to a LVMH-backed group in a €4 billion deal.

The two brands' popularity shows no sign of fading. Poshmark, the second-hand clothing app, said Crocs and Birkenstock remained top trending brands on its site in March. Sales are up sharply for both compared with the year-ago period. Cooperation with celebrities (Justin Bieber for Crocs, women's brand Proenza Schouler for Birkenstock) should help maintain the trend.

The same cannot be said for dress shoes, which were already falling out of fashion. Office closures and fewer special occasions such as weddings and graduations have accelerated the trend. Sales for the category plummeted last year, according to market researchers The NPD Group. These accounted for only 8% of total fashion footwear dollar sales in 2020, compared with 17% in 2017.

People will soon reach again for going-out clothes, more formal than pajamas(睡衣). But the market for dress shoes will never recover entirely. The ugly shoe movement is here to stay.

On Monday, I walked into a conference center and,instead of flashing an ID card with my name and photo, I positioned myself in front of a head-height camera the size of my fist. Seconds later, the screen read:"PLEASE ENTER." No one scanned the digital pass. My face might already be an enty ticket. Hair-raising? Cool?

As facial-recognition access points are everywhere in public places including airports and concert locations, you might be wondering how you're supposed to feel about it. Companies using face-matching software say it is speedy, convenient, and con-tactless for customers. Most also stress that it's only a choice. Meanwhile, lawmakers are looking to tighten regulations around use of this kind of technology because of privacy concerns

The answer comes down to the individual. It helps if you know the company: Do you want this company storing your personal information? What happens to your face image once you no longer need the service?

Facial recognition works by creating a map of your face. The map contains your unique measurements -the distance between your forehead and chin, or between your eyes. These data are then changed into code called a face print. It's how your iPhone's Face ID identifies you or how Google Photos can group photos of your kids

A company that stores your face data could keep it. Or the data could be acquired by a company that has an entirely different purpose than what you agreed to. This kind of misuse is a guess. However you can't always track where your face ends up: One company sold facial-recognition tech based on billions of images from social media and other sources

While you have the ability not to choose facial recognition, it could eventually come at a cost Think of how the cash lane at a toll stop is almost always far slower than the E-ZPass lanes. Facial recognition will only become more common in our travels and entertainment,as well as other areas such as education and banking. We've just begun to understand the advantages and disadvantages