The United States rose to global power on the strength of its technology, and the lifeblood that technology has long been electricity. By providing long-distance communication and energy electricity created the modern world. Yet properly understood, the age of electricity is merely the second stage in the age of steam which began a century earlier.

It is curious that on one has put together a history of both the steam and electric revolutions." writes Maury Klein in his book The Pore Makers, Seam, Electricity and the Men Invented Modern America. Klein, a noted historian of technology spins a narrative (叙述) so lively that at times it reads like a novel

The story begins in the last years of the 18th century in Scotland, where Watt perfected "the machine that changed the world". Klein writes/'America did not invent the steam engine, but once they grasped its passwords, they put it to more uses than anyone else.

Meanwhile, over the course of 19th century, electricity went from mere curiosity to a basic necessity. Morse invented a code for sending messages over an electromagnetic circuit Bell then gave the telegraph a voice. Edison perfected an incandescent bulb (白炽灯泡) that brought electric light into the American home.

Most importantly, Edison realized that success depended on mass electrification, which he showed in New York City. With help from Tesla, Westinghouse's firm developed a system using alternating current (交流电), which soon became the major forms of power delivery.

To frame his story, Klein creates the character of Ned, a fictional witness to the progress brought about by the steams and electric revolutions in America during one man's lifetime. It's a technique that helps turn a long narrative into an interesting one.

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.

Human speech contains more than 2, 000 different sounds, from the common "m" and "a" to the rare clicks of some southern African languages. But why are certain sounds more common than others? A ground-breaking, five-year study shows that diet-related changes in human bite led to new speech sounds that are now found in half the world's languages.

More than 30 years ago, the scholar Charles Hockett noted that speech sounds called labiodentals, such as "f" and "v", were more common in the languages of societies that ate softer foods. Now a team of researchers led by Damián Blasi at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, has found how and why this trend arose.

They discovered that the upper and lower front teeth of ancient human adults were aligned (对齐), making it hard to produce labiodentals, which are formed by touching the lower lip to the upper teeth. Later, our jaws changed to an overbite structure(结构), making it easier to produce such sounds.

The team showed that this change in bite was connected with the development of agriculture in the Neolithic period. Food became easier to chew at this point. The jawbone didn't have to do as much work and so didn't grow to be so large.

Analyses of a language database also confirmed that there was a global change in the sound of world languages after the Neolithic age, with the use of "f" and "v" increasing remarkably during the last few thousand years. These sounds are still not found in the languages of many hunter-gatherer people today.

This research overturns the popular view that all human speech sounds were present when human beings evolved around 300, 000 years ago. "The set of speech sounds we use has not necessarily remained stable since the appearance of human beings, but rather the huge variety of speech sounds that we find today is the product of a complex interplay of things like biological change and cultural evolution," said Steven Moran, a member of the research team.