Questões de Concursos Inglês

Thematic Discussion on Nuclear Weapons

The United States remains committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament, and to seeking to create conditions toward that end. And history makes clear that important progress can be made when security conditions allow. The easing of Cold War rivalries allowed the United States and Russia to make significant steps toward the shared dream of eventual nuclear disarmament after decades in which such movement was impossible. Disarmament success is predicated on patience, attention to detail, effective verification, and patient attention to the challenges of effecting the changes in the security environment that are necessary for progress. This last element is critical, considering the crucial role that nuclear deterrence plays in preserving and protecting international peace and security, and the potentially catastrophic consequences were deterrence’s restraining effect to be removed while it still remains necessary.

The “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” violates all these tenets. Its obligations are longstanding worded, imprecise, vaguely worded and sometimes internally contradictory, while offering only an empty shell for verification. Worse, it is fundamentally at odds with today’s security challenges. It is not simply an unproductive instrument; it is likely to be a counterproductive one, with the potential to cause lasting harm to the nonproliferation regime and to the cause of disarmament alike.

The ban treaty is based on the premise that addressing crucial international security issues is not necessary for disarmament. Ban treaty proponents would have us believe that we can do away with nuclear deterrence despite - to cite just one example - the danger posed by North Korea’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems, which stand in flagrant violation of international law.

Furthermore, the Treaty does not contain a credible verification mechanism, demurring on the issue almost entirely. It does run counter to decades of progress in nonproliferation verification by endorsing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement as its standard for safeguarding nuclear material.

Finally, the ban treaty has the potential to do real damage to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in other ways. It exacerbates political tensions on disarmament, dividing states into overly-simplified camps of “nuclear weapons supporters” and “nuclear weapons banners,” rather than recognizing shared interests – especially on the challenges involved in creating the conditions that would make possible further disarmament progress. Reinforcing this false dichotomy and worsening the world’s polarization on disarmament will make further progress within the institutions that have been vehicles for success, such as the NPT review process, significantly more difficult.

Inspired by the NPT Preamble’s acknowledgement of the need to ease international tension and strengthen trust between States in order to facilitate disarmament, the United States stands ready to work with others on effective measures to create improved conditions for nuclear disarmament. This work is focused on overcoming technical challenges to make substantive progress when the security conditions improve. We also continue our longstanding work to support and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime against the many challenges it faces today, for who could deny that there can be no way to envision today’s nuclear weapons possessors ever putting down such tools without rock-solid assurances that no one else will take them up?

There are no shortcuts to nuclear disarmament. Unrealistic attempts to skip to the finish line have the potential to undermine the institutions and standards we have worked so hard to build. Our collective experience demonstrates that inclusiveness and the search for consensus can lead to progress, while polarization is a recipe for failure. We urge all states to work with us in searching for common solutions to collective problems, pursuing a more secure world.

New Parents Don’t Get Enough Sleep for Six Years After a Child Is Born

Those first three months with a newborn can be rough, but researchers say sleep deprivation is an issue with parents for years. New parents are sometimes shocked to discover how little sleep they get in the first six months after a baby is born. They might also be discouraged to learn that their sleep patterns might not return to normal until that newborn is ready for kindergarten.

A new study published in the journal Sleep found that both parental sleep satisfaction and sleep duration sharply declined after childbirth, hitting their lowest point when a baby is 3 months old.

Women’s sleep duration and quality were far more affected than men, whether or not they breastfed their child. Women lost an average of one hour of sleep nightly compared to what they got prior to pregnancy, while men lost about 15 minutes of sleep per night.

Even four to six years after childbirth, mothers were getting 20 minutes less sleep per night than before they became pregnant, while fathers were still getting 15 minutes less sleep.

“The short-term effects of childbirth on parental sleep is well known. Our study just confirmed these effects,” Lemola told Healthline. “However, it was largely unexpected to find decreased sleep duration and sleep satisfaction six years after birth.”

Sleep was more affected among first-time parents than among parents with more than one child.

The findings were based on interviews of 4,659 parents who had a child between 2008 and 2015.

“While having children is a major source of joy for most parents, it is possible that increased demands and responsibilities associated with the role as a parent lead to shorter sleep and decreased sleep quality even up to six years after birth of the first child,” said Lemola.

Lemola said that future research would be required to determine how parents can cope with sleep loss and regain their sleep patterns sooner.

Adaptado de: <https://www.healthline.com/health-news/newparents-dont-get-sound-sleep-for-6-years#The-bottom-line> Acessado em 04 de março de 2019

Read Text I and answer question.

Text I: The speed of sound

Some music fans now know 15-second sped up snippets of songs better than the real thing. It’s thanks to an emerging trend on social media, particularly TikTok, of creators changing the tempo of popular songs by 25-30%, to accompany short viral videos of dances or other themes. This phenomenon presents a very modern challenge – how can singers create the next hit tune when the one people actually listen to might sound so different?

Sped-up listening emerged in the early 2000s as “Nightcore”, launched by a Norwegian DJ duo of the same name, who sped up a song’s pitch and speed. This is now commonplace on social media apps, where the speed of podcasts, voice notes, movies and more can be increased so that people can consume them in less time. But what people might not know is that unofficial sped-up or slowed down tunes are different to a professional remix because they are far shorter and can be easily made by anyone, including on TikTok, Instagram Reels and other apps.

In 2023, more than a third of Spotify listeners in the US sped up podcasts and nearly two-thirds played songs at a quicker tempo. The streaming service recently confirmed to the BBC that it was testing a new and more widespread feature that could potentially allow its customers to remix the tempo of songs and share them. In addition, some popstars are embracing this phenomenon. In November 2022, for example, fan-made sped-up versions of RAYE’s single “Escapism” helped the artist to achieve her first ever number one on the UK Official Singles Chart, nearly three months after its original release. Furthermore, Billie Eilish has also released official fast and slow versions of songs and Sabrina Carpenter’s hits “Please Please Please” and “Espresso” received similar treatment.

Dr Mary Beth Ray, an author focused on digital music culture, says short-form video platforms like TikTok “constrain our ways of listening into snippets, but those constraints also let you experience a track in a new way”. She also said that “short clips provide a quicker line to that dopamine rush social media wants us to feel – so there is an addictive element which we’re pushed towards.”

BBC Radio 1 DJ Maia Beth feels it's now getting hard for established labels and musicians to ignore this trend because it can sometimes feel like if they don't release the sped up version, then someone else will. Beth, who admits she can't imagine sitting and listening to a sped-up version of a song the whole way through, believes the trend shouldn't necessarily be a major distraction for musicians though. “Sped-up versions of tracks can help artists break through or go viral, although that initial success may not last,” she added.

TikTok says it has noticed an increase in the number of sped-up and slowed down versions of catalogue tracks taken off the platform, then become officially released. These official changed-tempo releases are now grouped together with the original song in the UK Official Singles Chart, along with remixes, acoustic and live versions, helping artists to climb the ranks.

That said, not everyone is happy with the trend. The popularity of speed-altered versions can make it harder to distinguish original from remix while altering an artist'sintended pacing, mood and tone. However, while some artists like them and others less so, it seems they are here to stay.

Adapted from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqv5x2qe8q6o Published: August 17, 2024